f*7x..-^:^^ 


■f.  ■< 


Tlie    Property 

OF    THE 


lEPIiiT  MGIElTl'lllST 

BARTON  SQUARE,  SALEM. 


DEPOSITED 


—  IN    THK- 


LIBRARY 


OF     THK 


ESSEX    INSTITUTE. 


REMARKS 


«Et 


THE  REV.  DR.  WORCESTER'S 


SECOND 


J.EtTER   TO   MR.   CHANNING. 


05 


AMERICAN  UNITARIANISM. 


WILLIAM  E.  CHANNING, 

Minister  of  the  Church  of  Christ  in  Federal  Streeti 


BOSTON  J 

PPJNTKD   ASD    PUBLISHED    BY   WILLS   AND    MWV. 

1815 


^^^~  ^f?ii 


REMARKS,  &c. 

Those  who  have  read  the  second  letter  addressed 
to  me  by  Dr.  Worcester,  will  not  be  surprised  at  the 
appearance  of  these  remarks.  I  intended  to  leave 
the  controversy  to  the  decision  of  tlie  publick,  who, 
I  thought,  were  in  possession  of  all  the  materials 
requisite  to  the  formation  of  a  correct  judgment. 
But  Dr.  Worcester  has  called  on  me  to  retract  Avhat 
he  pronounces  a  "  flagrant  misstatement"  of  an  im- 
portant part  of  his  letter  ;  and  he  has  done  this  with 
a  solemnity,  which  hardly  permits  me  to  observe  the 
silence  on  which  I  had  resolved.  These  remarks  will 
relate  primarily  to  that  point,  but  I  shall  not  restrain 
myself  from  onering  observations  on  other  parts  of 
his  letter. 

Dr.  Worcester  has  complained  with  much  earnest- 
ness, that  I  have  imputed  to  him,  in  my  former  re- 
marks, a  "  bad  spirit  and  intention."  To  this  I 
answer,  that  I  really  did  consider  his  letter  as  very 
unworthy  of  him  as  a  christian  and  a  christian  min- 
ister. I  did  think,  that  if  the  principles  of  his  letter 
could  be  reduced  to  practice,  every  Unitarian  would 
be  driven  from  the  church,  and  every  minister  of 
Unitarian  sentiments  would  be  driven  from  the  pul- 
pit. I  did  think,  that  he  discovered  a  strange  In- 
sensibility towards  his  brethren,  whose  moral  purity 
had  been  so  wantonly  assailed  in  the  Review  of  the 
Panoplist.  I  also  acknowledge,  that  I  did  not  dis- 
cover any  marks  of  that  afl'ection  and  respect  to- 
wards myself,  of  which  he  speaks  in  his  second  letter. 
Believing  that  his  remarks  directly  tended  to  divide 
the  church,  and  to  expose  a  respectable  body  of 
christians   to   reproach   and   injurious   treatment,  I 


spoke  of  this  tendency  with  plainness,  but  without 
bitterness  or  anger.  Whether  my  interpretation  of 
Dr.  Worcester's  letter,  in  these  respects,  was  unau- 
thorized, I  cheerfully  leave  to  the  decision  of  those 
who  have  read  it.  My  own  impressions  have  coin- 
cided with  those  of  all  around  me  ;  and  I  cannot 
believe,  that  I  have  not  one  friend  of  a  candid  mind, 
and  of  sufficient  ability  to  decide  on  the  obvious  im- 
port of  a  letter  written  in  our  native  tongue. 

Dr.  Worcester,  however,  disclaims  the  feelings? 
and  intentions  which  I  have  ascribed  to  him.  He 
professes  to  have  been  governed  by  respect  and  af- 
fection towards  me,  and  by  a  spirit  of  forbearance, 
kindness,  tenderness,  and  undissembled  good  will 
towards  his  brethren.  That  Dr.  Worcester  is  sin- 
cere in  reporting  what  now  appears  to  him  to  have 
been  the  state  of  his  mind  durmg  the  composition  of 
his  first  letter,  I  am  far  from  denying.  But  on  a 
subject  like  this,  memory  is  sometimes  treacherous  j 
and  I  confess  I  cannot  shake  otf  the  conviction,  that 
some  improper  feelings,  perhaps  unsuspected  by  Dr. 
Worcester,  occasionally  guided  his  pen.  But  I  mean 
not  to  pursue  this  point.  I  have  not  the  least  dispo- 
sition to  attribute  to  Dr.  Worcester  any  intentions 
which  he  disclaims.  I  had  much  rather  believe,  that 
his  style  is  unhappy,  than  that  his  temper  is  evil. 
Most  sincerely  do  I  wish,  that  his  heart  may  be  a 
stranger  to  every  unworthy  sentiment,  that  his  life 
may  be  adorned  witli  every  virtue,  and  be  crowned 
with  every  blessing. 

THE    CHARGE    OF    "  FLAGRANT    MISSTATEMENT." 

I  now  come  to  my  great  object.  In  my  former 
remarks,  I  observed',  that  Dr.  Worcester  "  has  so- 
"  lemnly  and  publickly  given  all  his  influence  to  the 
"  opinion,  that  we,  and  all  who  agree  with  us  on  the 
?*  subject  of  the  Trinity,  are  to  be  disowned  by  the 


»■  church  of  Christ.  The  obvious  import  of  the  con- 
*'  eluding  part  of  his  letter,  (and  it  Is  the  obvious 
"import,  and  not  a  strained  and  circuitous  interpre- 
"  tation  which  I  regard,)  may  be  thus  expressed. 
**  '  Every  man  who  cannot  admit  as  a  doctrine  of 
"  scripture,  the  great  doctrine  of  three  persons  in 
*'  one  God,  which  I  and  other  orthodox  christians 
"  embrace,  beheves  an  opposite  gospel,  rejects  the 
♦'  true  gospel,  despises  the  authority  of  Jesus  Christ, 
**  is,  of  course,  a  man  wholly  wanting  in  true  piety, 
"  and  without  christian  virtue,  and  may,  in  perfect 
*'  consistency  with  christian  love,  be  rejected  as  un- 
*'  worthy  the  name  of  a  christian.'  "  On  this  repre- 
sentation of  his  sentiments.  Dr.  Worcester  thus  re* 
marks,  "  Your  statement  'of  the  import  of  the 
"  concluding  part  of  my  letter  is  most  palpably 
"  incorrect  and  unjust.  And  though  I  attribute  this 
"  incorrectness  and  injustice  not  to  any  injurious  in- 
*'  tention,  but  to  that  habit  of  thinking  and  feeling  of 
**  which  I  have  before  taken  notice  ;  yet,  after  Avhat 
"  I  have  now  stated,  I  think  I  have  a  right  to  call 
"  upon  you,  and  I  do  solemnly  call  vpon  you^  to  retract 
"  this  Jlagrant  misstatement.  1  know,  indeed,  you 
"  have  given  it  to  be  understood,  that  you  shall  not 
"  write  again ;  but.  Sir,  the  publick  disputant,  who 
"  makes  this  resolve,  ought  to  be  careful,  not  merely 
"  not  to  put  down  aught  in  malice,  but  to  write 
*'  nothing  which  justice  to  his  opponent  and  to  the 
"  cause  of  truth — ^nothing  which  the  sacred  princi- 
♦'  pies  of  Christianity  will  require  him  to  retract."" 

This  is  the  charge,  which  has  again  brought  me 
before  the  publick,  the  charge  of  palpable  incorrect- 
ness  and  injustice,  and  oi Jlagrant  misstatement.  I  now 
intend  fairly  and  fully  to  meet  it.  I  intend  to  show, 
that  in  giving  this  interpretation,  I  followed  the  na- 
tural meaning  of  Dr.  Worcester's  words,  that  I  put 
no  yiolence  on  his  language,  and  that  no  other  sense 


would  have  offered  itself  to  an  unprejudiced  mind, 
I  shall  state  the  passages  which  led  to  the  repre- 
sentation which  I  have  formed,  beginning  with  those 
Avhich  are  least  decisive,  as  these  first  present  them- 
selves in  the  letter,  and  requesting  tlie  reader  to 
form  his  judgment,  not  from  a  part,  but  from  the 
whole  which  shall  be  presented  to  him. 

In  page  24,  of  Dr.  Worcester's  letter,  I  found  the 
ibllowmg  quotation  from  scripture,  with  the  subjoined 
remark:  "  St.  Peter  says,  'There  were  false  pro- 
"  phets  also  among  the  people,  even  as  there  shall 
"  be  false  teachers  among  you,  who  privily  shall 
"  bring  in  damnable  heresies,  even  denymg  the  Lord 
"  that  bought  them,  and  bring  upon  themselves 
"  swift  destruction.'  If  this  language  sound  harsh 
"  and  unfashionable,"  Dr.  Worcester  continues,  "  I 
"  trust.  Sir,  you  will  have  the  goodness  not  to  im- 
"  pute  the  fault  to  me;  orthatyoQ  will  not  on  account 
"  of  any  unpleasantness  in  the  language,  refuse  to 
"  give  attention  to  the  momentous  sentiment  contain- 
"  ed  In  it."  I  did  consider  this  text  of  scripture, 
follcywed  by  this  remark,  as  intended  by  Dr.  Wor- 
cester to  be  applied  to  my  brethren  and  to  myself, 
and  to  hold  us  up  to  the  community  as  false  teachers, 
who  have  brought  in  damnable  heresies,  who  have 
denied  the  Lord  that  bought  tis,  and  who  are  bringing 
on  ourselves  swift  destruction.  I  believed  that  every 
reader  Avould  give  this  application  to  the  passage, 
and  that  some  would  be  confirmed  by  it  in  denying 
to  all  Unitarian  ministers  the  christian  character. 
Dr.  Worcester  has  frankly  acknowledged  the  impro- 
priety of  the  remark  which  follows  the  text;  and  I 
introduce  it  now,  not  foi"  the  sake  of  casting  on  him 
the  jilightest  reproach,  but  simply  to  state  the  im- 
pression which  it  naturally  communicated,  at  the 
lime  wlien  my  remarks  were  written. 

In  page  21,  Dr.  Worcester  speaks    of   "  the  doc- 
•'  trines  on   Arhich  we  dilFer."  as  '•  doctrines  which 


'*  immediately  affect  the  very  foundations  of  cup 
"  faith ;"  and  he  adds,  that  "  a  true  faith  is  the  vital 
"  principle  of  all  holy  practice,  and  of  all  the  works 
"  which  are  good  and  acceptable  in  the  sight  of 
"  God."  I  understood  this  passage  as  strongly  inti- 
mating, that  Unitarian  principles  shake  the  very  foun- 
dation of  all  holy  practice,  and  of  all  good  works. 

In  page  24,  1  met  the  following  remarkable  pas- 
sage :  "  The  God  whom  you  worship,  is  different 
"  from  ours^''''  and  a  little  below,  "  if  we  are  wrong 
"  in  regard  to  the  object  of  our  worship,  we  can 
"  hardly  be  right  in  any  part  of  our  religion."  I 
understood  this  passage  as  strongly  intimating,  that 
the  whole  religion  of  Unitarians  is  rendered  worth- 
less, by  their  departure  from  the  "  orthodox,"  on  the 
subject  of  the  Trinity. 

rage  29,1  met  the  following  passage,  which  seem- 
ed to  me  to  admit  but  one  construction.  Dr.  Wor- 
cester is  speaking  of  the  diiferent  schemes  of  Mr. 
Belsham,  and  of  "orthodox  christians;"  and  he  says, 
"  One  or  the  other  of  these  schemes  must  be  what 
"  St.  Paul  denominates  '  another  gospel,'  and  against 
"  which  and  its  abettors  he  solemnly  pronounces 
"  his  apostolick  anathema."  Which  of  these  two 
schemes  Dr.  Worcester  intended  to  mark  out  as 
"  another  gospel,"  is  a  question  which  no  reader  of 
his  letter  will  wish  me  to  discuss.  Who  doubts  that 
it  was  Mr.  Belsham's  }  Against  this  scheme  then, 
and  against  its  abettors,  the  apostolick  curse  is  pro- 
nounced. This  I  certainly  understood  to  be  Dr. 
Worcester's  meaning,  and  I  see  not  what  other 
sense  the  passage  will  bear.  I  also  had  not  a  doubt 
that  Dr.  Worcester  in  representing  the  abettors  of 
Mr.  Belsham's  scheme  as  accursed^  intended  to  repre- 
sent them  as  wholly  destitute  of  piety  and  christian 
virtue,  for  this  I  naturally  conceived  was  implied  iit 
the  curse  of  God.     Dr.  W-orcester  indeed  says,  that 


IxG  did  not  draw  this  inference,  but  it  seemed  to  me 
too  plain  to  need  the  formahty  of  a  deduction.  I  be- 
lieve, that  this  will  be  granted  by  all  to  be  the  plain 
sense  of  his  words — But  it  may  be  said  that  this  pas- 
sage only  includes  the  followers  of  Mr.  Belsham. 
Let  the  reader  observe  Dr.  Worcester's  phraseolo- 
gy. He  does  not  say  followers^  but  abettors.  Let  the 
reader  then  look  back  to  pages  10  and  11  of  Dr. 
Worcester's  letter.  He  will  there  find  Dr.  Worces- 
ter very  stroni^'ly  intimating  that  the  liberal  party  gen." 
erally  are  partakers  in  the  deeds  and  guilt  of  Mr. 
Be] sham,  because  they  bear  no  decided  testimony 
against  them.  The  natural  import,  then,  of  this 
passage  is,  not  only  that  Mr.  Belsham  in  particular, 
but  that  the  liberal  party  in  general,  fall  under  the 
apostoUck  curse.  But  the  next  passage  is  still  more 
decisive. 

Page  32,  I  met  the  following  passage.  "Is  it- 
"  a  violation  of  the  great  law  of  love  for  the  friends  of 
"  truth  to  decline  communion  with  its  rejecters  t  We 
"  have  nothing  to  do  here  with  slight  diversities  of 
"  opinion ;  with  differences  about  modes  or  forms,  or 
"  inconsiderable  points  of  faith  or  practice.  Our  con- 
"  cern  is  with  differences  of  a  radical  and  fundamental 
"  nature  ;  such  as  exist  between  orthodox  Christians 
"  and  Unitarians  of  all  degrees,  even  down  to  the 
"  creed  of  Mr.  Belsham  :  for  to  this  point  you  have 
"  yourself  fairly  reduced  the  present  question.  Yes, 
"  Sir,  the  simple  point  here  at  issue  is.  Whether  it 
•'  be  a  violation  of  the  law  of  love,  for  believers  in 
'•the  true  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  separate  from 
*'  believers  in  another  and  an  opposite  gospel  ?  If 
"  yojirs  is  the  true  Gospel,  then  ours  is  another ;  it 
"  ours  is  the  true  Gospel,  then  yours  is  another."  I 
clearly  understood  Dr.  Worcester,  in  this  passage,  as 
saying,  that  the  differences  between  "  orthodox  Chns- 
"  t fans'"  and  Unitarians  are  radical  and  fundamental. 


and  that  I  and  my  brethren  and  Unitarians  of  ati 
degrees  hold  "  another  gospel,"  and  even  an  opposite 
gospel  to  the  true.  I  understood  too,  that  as  he 
considered  Mr.  Belsham  and  his  abettors  as  accursed 
because  thej  had  "■  another  gospel,"  he  intended  to 
represent  me.  and  all  who  agree  with  me  in  rejecting 
the  "orthodox"  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  as  also  failing 
under  the  apostle's  curse,  because  he  represents  our 
gospel  not  only  as  "  another"  but  as  opposite  to  the 
true  gospel.  I  also  understood  his  pointed  interro- 
gations as  strongly  teaching,  that  the  "friends  of 
truth"  (a  phrase  never  doubtful  in  Dr.  Worcester's 
mouth)  may  separate  themselves  from  us  and  decline 
communion  with  us,  without  any  "violation  of  Chris- 
tian love."  What  other  interpretation  this  passage 
can  bear,  I  confess  myself  as  yet  unable  to  conceive. 

Page  33,  I  met  with  a  passage  which  also  seemed 
to  me  very  plain  and  decisive.  Dr.  Worcester  asks, 
"  Would  it  conduce  more  to  the  promotion  of  truth, 
*'  for  the  believers  in  the  true  gospel,  to  hold  fellow- 
*'  ship  with  the  believers  in  another  gospel,  than  to 
*'  separate  from  them  }  We  have  seen  in  w^hat  way 
"  only  this  fellowship  can  be  maintained.  If  it  is  to 
*'  be  maintained,  the  principcd  doctrines  of  the  gospel 
"  must  cease  to  be  clearly  preached;  divine  worship 
"must  cease  to  be  conducted  on  principles  distin- 
"  oruishinocly  Christian,  &c.  &;c.  But  is  this  the  wav. 
"  Sn',  to  promote  the  truth  m  the  church  and  the 
"  world  }  Is  it  not  rather  the  way  to  extinguish  the 
"  light  of  the  ministry^  the  light  of  the  church.,  the  light 
^'^  of  the  ivorkl,  to  throw  back  the  children  of  light 
♦'into  darkness  and  the  shadow  of  death.,  and  to  leave 
"  the  prince  of  darkness  to  triumph  in  an  unlimited  and 
"  undisturbed  empire  ?"  I  thougnt  this  passage  very 
plain.  I  understood  Dr.  Worcester  as  saying,  thai 
were  "  orthodox  Christians"  to  wave  in  their  pi'cach- 
ing  and  in  publick  worship  those  peculiarities  which 
2 


10 

are  dis^pprored  by  Unitarians,  the  light  of  the  g"os- 
pe!  would  be  put  out,  the  ministry  would  be  useless, 
Christians  would  fall  back  into  the  shadow  of  death, 
and  Satan  would  rule  the  minds  of  men  without  any 
limitation  or  any  disturbance  to  his  power.  In  other 
words,  I  understood  Dr.  Worcester  as  saying,  that 
where  a  Unitarian  ministry  and  worship  are  estab- 
hshed,  the  minds  of  men  are  altogether  unenlightened 
by  the  gospel,  and  are  abandoned  wholly  to  the  sway 
of  the  prince  of  darkness.  This  is  indeed  a  horrible 
sentiment. — But  as  yet  I  see  no  explanation  of  the 
passage  by  which  it  can  be  avoided. 

I  now  come  to  the  last  passage  which  I  shall  quote, 
found  in  page  35.  "  Sir,  the  differences,  which  exist 
between  the  Unitarians  and  the  orthodox  christians 
are  certainly  of  a  nature  to  demand  the  most  seri- 
ous and  earnest  attention.  They  concern  most 
directly  and  essentially  the  glory  of  God,  the  hon- 
our of  the  Saviour,  the  welfare  of  the  church,  and 
the  salvation  of  men.  In  comparison  with  these, 
the  difference  between  Dissenters  and  Episcopa- 
lians, between  Pasdo-baptists  and  Anti-paedo-bap- 
tists,  are  matters  of  mere  feature  and  complexion. 
Utterly  in  vain  is  the  attempt  to  put  these  differen- 
ces out  of  light,  to  conceal  then'  magnitude  and 
momentous  consequences;  or  by  a  raised  cry  of 
bigotry,  illiberality,  and  intolerance,  to  divert  the 
publick  attention  from  them.  They  must  and  will 
be  fearlessly  discussed  and  seriously  considered ; 
and  ministers,  and  churches,  professed  christians, 
and  all  others  must  and  will  be  brought  to  the 
solemn  decision — whether  they  will  be  for  Christy 
or  agaitist  him  ;  whether  they  will  receive  and  hold 
fast  his  truth,  or  despise  and  reject  it;  whether  thej 
will  bow  to  his  authority,  and  trust  in  his  grace,  or 
refuse  to  have  him  to  reign  over  them^  and  contemn 
his  salvation^  This  passage  seemed  to  me  per- 
fectly plain  when  I  wrote  my  remarks,  and  I  am  yel 


11 

Enable  to  give  it  a  different  interpretation.  Dr. 
Worcester  speaks  in  this  passage  of  Unitarians  in 
the  broadest  sense  of  the  word,  of  Unitarians  as  op- 
posed to  "  orthodox  christians,"  i.  e.  of  all  who  re- 
ject the  "  orthodox"  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  He 
says  that  the  differences  between  tliis  class  and  the 
"  orthodox"  concern  most  directly  and  cssentialbj  the 
salvation  of  men  ;  that  these  differences,  in  spite  of 
clamour  and  concealment,  will  be  fearlessly  discuss- 
ed;  and  that  in  deciding  on  these  differences,  in 
choosing  between  these  parties,  men  will  in  fact  de- 
cide whether  they  will  be  ybr  C/im/,  will  receive  and 
bow  to  his  truth,  or  will  be  against  him^  will  despise 
his  truth  and  salvation,  and  refuse  to  have  him  to 
reign  over  him.  I  thought  this  passage  too  obvious 
to  admit  dispute.  I  understood  Dr.  Worcester  as 
charging  Unitarians  of  all  degrees  with  contempt 
and  rejection  of  the  authority  of  Jesus  Christ,  and 
of  course,  with  entire  destitution  of  piety  and  chris- 
tian virtue. 

I  have  selected  several  passages  from  Dr.  Worces- 
ter's letter,  which  appear  to  me  to  vindicate  entirely 
the  statement  which  I  made  of  his  sentiments.  Let 
me  now  ask  the  reader  to  examine  them  in  the  con- 
nexion in  which  they  stand.  He  will  find  nothing 
thrown  in  by  Dr.  Worcester  to  restrain  their 
natural  import ;  not  one  word  expressive  of  charity 
for  Unitarians  of  any  class ;  not  one  word  to  soften 
the  severity  of  his  censure.  His  whole  reasonings 
and  interrogations  appeared  to  me  to  have  one  bear- 
ing, to  breathe  one  spirit,  and  left  me  without  a  doubt 
as  to  his  real  meaning. 

I  can  further  say  that  there  was  nothing  in  th« 
state  of  my  mind  unfavourable  to  a  fair  interpreta- 
tion of  Dr.  Worcester's  letter.  I  regarded  him  as  a 
man  of  candour  and  moderation.  I  expected  nothing 
like  exclusion  and  denunciation.  Seldom  have  1 
known  a  more  cruel  disappointment  than  in  reading 


12 

his  first  letter.  To  this  I  can  add,  that  among  those 
with  whom  I  liave  conversed,  I  have  found  but  one 
sentiment  in  reo^ard  to  his  meanino;.  I  cannot  there- 
fore  beheve,  that  my  prejudices  have  bhnded  me, 
and  tliat  I  am  chargeable  with  "  palpable  and  flagrant 
misstatement.'' 

Dr.  Worcester  however  assures  me  that  I  have 
misrepresented  hun  ;  and  I  have  no  disposition  to 
question  the  sincerity,  with  which  he  now  declares, 
that  he  did  not  intend  to  communicate  the  senti- 
ments which  I  ascribed  to  him.  I  cannot  indeed 
avoid  the  belief,  that  his  recollections  on  this  point 
are  imperfect,  and  that  in  the  hurry  of  his  thoughts 
and  feelino-s,  he  was  not  so  watchful  over  his  mo- 
tives  as  he  now  imagines.  With  this,  however,  I  have 
no  concern.  I  am  satisfied  with  having  shown,  that 
my  interpretation  was  natural,  and  indeed  unavoida- 
ble, and  f  cheerfully  record  the  protest  of  Dr.  Wor- 
cester against  this  interpretation.  I  am  pleased  to 
witness  the  sensibility  with  which  he  repels  the 
charge  of  denying  to  Anti-Trinitarians  all  piety 
and  virtue.  I  observe  in  this  a  degree  of  candour 
of  which  I  could  not  discern  the  faintest  ray  in  his 
first  letter. 

DR.    AVORCESTER'S    CONCESSION    IN    FAVOUR    OF    DR. 
CLARKE. 

There  is  another  part  of  Dr.  Worcester's  letter 
which  also  gave  me  some  pleasure.  I  refer  to  that 
part,  in  which  he  expresses  some  charitable  senti- 
ments towards  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke.  He  tells  us, 
"  that  he  is  by  no  means  prepared  to  say  that  every 
"one^vho  adopts  Dr.  Clarke's  views  of  the  Trinity 
"  rejects  the  true  gospel,  embraces  another,  and  is 
"  devoid  of  christian  faith  and  virtue."  Now  if  he 
Avill  act  consistently  with  these  sentiments,  and  with 
tile  charitable  dispositions  which  he  seems  inclined 
to   exercise  towards  the  author  of  "  Bible  IS ews»'' 


the  controversy  between  us  will  soon  end.  As  fap 
as  I  understand  the  prevalent  sentiments  among  libe- 
ral christians  in  this  quarter  of  our  country,  they 
appear  to  me  substantially  to  agree  with  the  views 
of  these  excellent  men ;  and  were  we  required  to 
select  human  leaders  in  religion,  I  believe,  that  we 
should  range  ourselves  under  their  standard  in  pre- 
ference to  any  other.  Dr.  Clarke  believed,  that  the 
Father  alone  is  the  Supreme  God,  and  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  not  the  Supreme  God,  but  derived  his  be- 
ing, and  all  his  power  and  honours  from  the  Father, 
even  from  an  act  of  the  Father's  power  and  will. 
He  maintains,  that  as  the  scriptures  have  not  taught 
us  the  manner  in  which  the  Son  derived  his  existence 
from  his  Father,  it  is  presumptuous  to  affirm,  that 
the  Son  was  created,  or,  that  there  was  a  time  when 
he  did  not  exist.  On  these  subjects  the  Avord  of 
God  has  not  given  us  light,  and  therefore  we  ought 
to  be  silent.  The  author  of  "  Bible  News,"  in  like 
manner  affirms,  that  the  Father  only  is  the  Supreme 
God,  that  Jesus  is  a  distinct  being  from  God,  and  that 
he  derives  every  thing  from  his  Father.  He  has 
some  views  relating  to  the  "proper  Sonship"  of 
God,  which  neither  liberal  nor  "orthodox"  chris- 
tians generally  embrace.  But  the  prevalent  senti- 
ments of  liberal  christians  seem  to  me  to  accord  sub- 
stantially with  the  systems  I  have  above  described. 
Like  Dr.  Clarke,  the  majority  of  this  class  feel  that 
the  scriptures  have  not  taught  the  mode  of  Christ's 
derivation.  They  therefore  do  not  call  Christ  a  crea- 
ture, but  leave  the  subject  in  the  obscurity  in  which 
they  find  it,  carrying  with  them,  however,  an  im- 
pression, that  the  scriptures  ascribe  to  Jesus  the 
character  of  Son  of  God  in  a  peculiarly  high  sense, 
and  in  a  sense  in  which  it  is  ascribed  to  no  other  be- 
ing. With  respect  to  the  atonement,  the  great 
body  of  liberal  christians  seem  to  me  to  accord  pre- 


14 

cisely  with  tlie  author  of  "  Bible  New.?,'^  or  rathef" 
both  agree  very  much  with  the  profound  Butler. 
Both  agree,  that  Jesus  Christ,  by  his  sufferings  and 
intercession,  obtains  forgiveness  for  sinful  men,  or 
that  on  account,  or  in  consequence  of  what  Christ 
has  done  and  suffered,  the  punishment  of  sin  is  aver- 
ted from  the  penitent,  and  blessings,  forfeited  by 
sin,  are  bestowed.  On  the  question  which  is  often 
asked,  how  the  death  of  Christ  has  this  blessed  in- 
fluence, they  generally  think  that  the  scriptures  have 
given  us  little  light,  and  that  it  is  the  part  of  wisdom 
to  accept  the  kind  appointment  of  God,  without  con- 
structing theories  for  which  the  materials  must  be 
chiefly  borrowed  from  our  own  imagination. 

My  motive  for  making  the  preceding  statement  is 
no  other  than  a  desire  to  contribute  whatever  may 
be  in  my  power  to  the  peace  of  our  churches.  I 
have  hoped  that  by  this  representation,  some  portion 
of  the  charity  which  has  been  expressed  towards 
Dr.  Clarke,  and  the  author  of  "^  Bible  News,"  may  be 
extended  towards  their  Unitarian  brethren ;  and  that 
thus  the  ecclesiastical  division  which  is  threatened 
may  be  averted.  Let  it  not,  however,  be  imagined 
that  I  or  my  friends  are  anxious  on  our  own  account 
to  extort  from  tlie  "  orthodox"  an  acknowledgment, 
that  possibly  we  hold  the  true  gospel,  and  are  not 
"  devoid  of  christian  faith  and  virtue."  We  regard 
other  christians  as  brethren,  but  can  in  no  degree 
recognize  them  as  superiours  in  the  church  of  our 
common  master.  We  do  not  dread  the  censures 
which  they  may  pass  on  our  honest  opinions  :  We 
rejoice  that  we  have  a  higher  judge,  whose  truth  it 
is  our  labour  to  learn,  obey,  and  maintain,  and  whose 
favour  will  be  distributed  by  other  principles  than 
those  which  prevail  in  a  prejudiced  and  shortsighted 
world.  But,  whilst  we  mean  not  to  be  suitors  to 
our  brethren  ;  we  are   willing  and  desirous,  by  any 


1'5 

feir  representations,  to  save  them  from  a  course, 
which,  as  we  firmly  believe,  will  be  injurious  to 
their  own  characters,  injurious  to  their  brethren,  un- 
friendly to  the  diffusion  of  the  gospel,  and  highly 
oifensive  to  our  common  and  benevolent  master. 

Happy  should  I  be,  if  by  any  representation  or 
any  honourable  concessions  on  our  part,  our  churches 
could  be  preserved  from  the  shock  which  threatens 
them.  But  on  this  point  Dr.  Worcester's  last  letter 
is  as  discouraging  as  the  first.  He  indeed  dis- 
claims the  intention  of  denying  to  Anti-trinitarians 
all  piety  and  virtue.  But  the  tendency  of  his  letters 
must  be  obvious  to  the  humblest  understanding,  and 
I  doubt  not  that  many  carry  from  them  the  impres- 
sion, that  Unitarians  criminally  reject  the^ospel,  and 
ought  to  be  driven  from  the  church.  This  effect, 
whether  intended  or  not,  is  produced,  and  for  tliis 
we  hold  Dr.  Worcester  responsible. 

THE    METHODS     OF    RENDERING    UNITARIANS    ODIOUS. 

In  his  last  letter,  one  great  object  seems  to  be,  to 
paint  in  the  strongest  colours  the  differences  between 
Unitarians  and  Trinitarians,  and  to  produce  the  most 
unfavourable  impression  in  regard  to  the  former.  To 
effect  this  object,  he  again  and  again  brings  forward 
the  views  of  the  lowest  Unitarians,  and  culls  the 
most  offensive  passages  from  the  Avorks  of  Dr. 
Priestley  and  Mr.  Belsham.  I  know  that  he  throws 
in  a  caution  against  the  inference,  that  all  Unitarians 
are  responsible  for  these  views :  but  I  am  persuaded, 
that  the  effect  on  common  readers  is,  that  they  iden- 
tify this  whole  class  of  Christians  with  Mr.  Belsham 
and  Dr.  Priestley.  Now  to  this  I  object.  It  is  well 
known  that  every  denomination  of  Clnistians  is  bro- 
ken into  various  subdivisions.  For  instance,  among 
those  who  adopt  the  great  princij)les  of  Calvin,  are 
Sandemanians,  Antinomians,  Fatalists,  and  I  may 
a^dd,  Uaiversalists.  >Suppose  now  that  in  delineating 


16 

Calvinism,  I  should  lay  the  chief  stress  on  these 
peculiarities.  Or  suppose,  that  I  should  ransack  the 
writings  of  Trinitarians,  should  collect  all  their  crude 
notions  and  wild  explanations  of  the  Trinity,  and 
should  bring  forward  the  horrible  language,  in  which 
some  have  spoken  of  God"'s  wrath  burning  against 
his  Son,  and  of  the  blood  of  Jesus  appeasing  the  fury 
of  the  Father.  Would  not  Calvinists  and  Trinita- 
rians pronounce  me  unfair,  if  by  such  methods  I 
should  lead  common  readers  to  imagine,  that  they  were 
generally  favourable  to  these  offensive  sentiments. 
It  is  an  indisputable  fact,  that  Dr.  Priestley  and  Mr. 
Belsham  have,  comparatively,  few  followers  among 
tlie  Anti-trinitarian  clergy  of  this  country.  For  my- 
self, I  have  read  very  fev/  of  the  writings  of  these  gen- 
tlemen, and  chiefly  from  Vv^ant  of  sympathy  with  their 
general  views.  Their  theology  appears  to  me  very 
defective,  and  their  theory  of  materialism  and  of  neces- 
sity, which  they  have  attempted  to  incorporate  with 
their  theology,  seems  to  me  unfriendly  to  a  sense  of 
responsibility,  and  to  elevation  of  moral  feeling.  Are 
we  then  to  be  confounded  with  the  lower  Unitarians, 
because  we  happen  to  accord  Avith  them  in  the  great 
point,  that  the  Father  alone  is  the  supreme  God, 
and  that  Jesus  Christ  derives  from  him  his  being  and 
all  his  powers. — Do  any  ask  me  on  what  ground  I 
admit  those,  whose  theology  is  so  defective,  to  be 
Christians?  I  answer;  precisely  on  the  ground  on 
which  I  acknowledii'e  the  Christian  character  of 
another  denomination,  whose  additions  to  the  simple 
gospel  seem  to  me  at  least  as  exceptionable  as  the 
deficiencies  of  their  brethren.  But  what  did  I  say  } 
that  /  admit  these  men  to  be  Christians !  They  need 
no  admission  of  mine.  Professing  Jesus  to  be  their 
head,  and  exhibiting  in  their  lives  a  reverence  for  his 
gospel,  they  have  a  place  in  Christ's  church  which  I  did 
not  give,  and  which  neither  I  nor  any  other  man  can 
take  a^vnv. 


17 

Another  method  of  awakening  pubUck  feeling; 
against  the  Unitarians,  is  to  represent  them  as  obhged 
bj  their  sentiments  to  give  up  the  doctrine  of  the 
atonement.  It  is  indeed  very  true,  that  Unitarians 
say  nothing  about  infinite  atonement,  and  they  shud- 
der when  they  hear,  what  Dr.  Worcester  seems  to 
assert,  that  the  ever  blessed  God  sutfered  and  died 
on  the  cross.  They  reject  these  representations, 
because  they  find  not  one  passage  in  scri|)ture 
which  directly  asserts  them,  or  gives  them  sup- 
port. Not  one  word  do  Ave  hear  from  Christ  or  his 
Apostles  of  an  infinite  atonement.  In  not  one  solitary 
text,  is  the  efficacy  of  Christ's  death  in  obtaining  for- 
giveness, ascribed  to  his  being  the  Supreme  God. 
All  this  is  theology  of  man's  making,  and  strongly 
marked  with  the  nand  of  its  author.  But  the  doc- 
trine of  the  atonement,  taken  in  the  broad  sense  which 
1  have  before  stated,  is  not  rejected  by  Unitarians. 
In  my  former  letter,  I  adduced  two  distinguished 
Unitarians,  Dr.  Clarke,  and  the  author  of  Bible  News, 
in  whose  valuable  writings  this  doctrine  is  stated 
and  maintained.  Dr.  Worcester  does  not  deny 
■the  fact,  but  to  rny  astonishment  has  attempted  to 
escape  its  force,  by  maintaining  that  these  gentlemen 
do  not  deny  the  essential  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ,  and 
are  therefore  not  obliged  to  renounce  the  atonement. 
What!  Dr.  Clarke  and  Mr.  Noah  Worcester  do  not 
deny  the  essential  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ !  I  assure  Dr. 
Worcester  then,  that  neither  I  nor  my  friends  deny  it, 
and  that,  according  to  his  own  language,  we  are  under 
no  necessity  of  denying  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement. 
The  fact  is,  that  some  of  the  best  works  on  the  atone* 
ment  have  come  from  the  pens  of  Unitarians.  Mr. 
Tomkins,  one  of  the  most  zealous  UnitarFans  of  his  age, 
and  I  believe  a  sufferer  for  his  principles,  published  i* 
well  known  treatise,  called  "Jesus  Christ  the  Medi- 
«'  ator,"  in  which  the  doctrine  of  atonement  is  more 
strenuously  mslsted  on,  than  even  by  Dr.  Clarke  an^ 
3 


18 

Mr.  Noah  Worcester.  Not  long  ago,  there  wag 
published  in  this  country,  I  think  under  the  patron- 
ajre  of  Trinitarians,  a  work  on  the  atonement  by 
Hampton,  called  '•  Candid  Remarks  on  Dr.  Taylor, 
&;c."  which,  as  I  well  recollect,  appeared  to  me,  when 
I  read  it,  to  be  decidedly  the  production  of  an 
Unitarian.  It  contains  not  one  word  about  an  infinite 
atonement  made  by  the  Supreme  God,  The  sentiments 
of  the  work,  I  think,  accord  in  the  main  with  the 
views  of  many  Unitarians  in  this  country.  Unitari- 
anisni,  then,  does  not  exclude  the  doctrine  of  atone- 
ment. 

Another  method  by  which  the  publick  feelings  are 
to  be  awakened  agamst  Unitarians,  is  the  frequent 
assertion,  that  they  disbelieve  the  Trinity,  because 
the  doctrine  is  mysterious,  and  because  they  prefer 
reason  to  revelation,  human  wisdom  to  the  wisdom 
of  God.  Dr.  Worcester  says  to  me,  "  The  doctrine 
"  of  the  Trinity  the  Unitarians  utterly  deny,  not  be- 
•'  cmise  there  is  no  proof  of  it  in  the  Scriptures^  but 
"  because  it  is  a  doctrine  (as  you  repeatedly  and  em- 
"  phatically  pronounce)  perplexing,  mysterious,  and 
"•  not  to  be  understood."  What  will  common  readers 
infer  from  this,  and  from  other  passages  in  his  letter  ? 
Why,  that  we  do  not  rest  on  scripture,  as  the  ground 
of  our  rejection  of  this  doctrine,  or  at  least,  that  we  do 
not  consider  the  scripturss  as  very  strongly  opposed 
to  the  Trinity,  and  that  we  assail  it  chiefly  with 
weapons  furnished  by  reason.  Now,  as  far  as  my 
knowledge  of  Unitarian  writers  extends,  this  impres- 
sion is  altogether  unfounded.  We  do  indeed  object 
to  the  Trinity,  that,  as  it  is  often  stated,  it  is  an  unin- 
telligible proposition ;  and  we  say,  what  I  presume 
Dr.  Worcester  will  as  freely  say,  that  it  is  out  of  our 
power  to  believe  a  proposition  of  which  we  do  not 
know  the  7neaning.  It  is  also  true,  that  when  the 
doctrine  is  stated,  as  it  sometimes  is,  in  w^ords  which 
we  understand ;   when  for  example  w^e  are  told  by 


19 

the  pious  Howe,  that  the  three  persons  in  God  are 
three  minds;  we  insist  that  it  involves  a  palpable  con- 
tradiction, and  we  argue  precisely  as  the  protestants 
do  with  the  papists,  that  a  doctrine  involving  a  con- 
tradiction cannot  be  from  God.  But  Unitarians 
never  stop  here.  They  always  declare  that  Scrip- 
ture with  one  voice  disowns  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  and  that  of  all  the  lictions  of  theologians, 
the  doctrine  of  three  persons  in  the  one  God,  has 
perhaps  the  least  countenance  from  the  Bible.  Theii' 
writings  are  filled  witli  quotations  from  Scripture. 
Some  of  them,  like  Dr.  Clarke's,  consist  almost 
entirely  of  texts  arranged  under  proper  heads.  Uni- 
tarians believe,  and  constantly  amrm,  that  no 
laboured  comments  and  no  critical  skill  are  required, 
to  teach  common  Christians  the  great  truth,  that  the 
Father  alone  is  the  supreme  God,  and  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  a  derived  and  dependent  being  ;  and  they 
believe  and  affirm,  that  the  opposite  sentiment  is 
chiefly  maintained  by  appeals  to  men's  fears,  and  by  ar- 
tificial excitement  of  their  feelings.  This  is  the  ground 
taken  by  all  the  Unitarians  whom  I  have  known, 
and  on  this  Scripture  ground  I  profess  myself  to  rest. 
I  am  not  conscious  of  the  least  prejudice  against  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  My  earliest  prepossessions 
must  have  been  in  its  favour.  But  in  my  youth, 
before  I  had  read  a  book  on  the  subject,  the  Scrip- 
tures suggested  doubts  of  its  truth,  and  by  the  study 
chiefly  of  the  Scriptures,  my  doubts  have  grown  up 
into  a  solid  conviction.  The  Scriptures^  in  my  view, 
are  the  strength  of  the  Unitarian  cause :  and  I  am 
persuaded,  that  they  are  continually  extending  it  in 
opposition  to  the  strongest  influences  of  education. 
I  have  found  from  conversing  Avith  pious  people  of 
both  sexes,  that  the  Scriptures  always  gave  them 
the  idea,  that  God  and  Jesus  Christ  were  distinct 
beings,  and  that  Jesus  derived  his  being  and  power 
from  God,     They  have  sometimes  told  me.  that  they 


20 

Jbave  wlslied  to  resist  this  impression,  that  they  have 
dreaded  to  depart  from  principles  which  were  early 
instilled  as  essential,  that  they  have  shrunk  from  a 
doubt  of  the  Trinity  as  from  a  sin  ;  but  still  the  lan- 
guage of  Scri})ture  has  forced  them  to  doubt  and 
disbelieve.  Tliis  is  the  history  of  many  minds  ;  and 
many,  I  am  confident,  have  buried  in  silence  anxious 
scruples,  v»'liich  tliey  dared  not  clothe  in  Avords. 

I  state  this  with  great  distinctness  and  strength, 
that  I  may  repel  and  remove  a  common  mistake 
among  Christians,  that  we  reject  the  Trinity  because 
we  cannot  reconcile  it  with  reason,  although  we  can 
hardly  help  acknowledging  it  as  a  Scripture  doctrine. 
It  is  not  because  we  exalt  reason  above  Scripture,, 
but  because  we  revere  the  Scriptures,  because  we 
fear  God,  that  we  maintain  Unitarian  principles. 
We  dare  not  offer  prayers  to  the  Holy  Ghost, 
because  we  fmd  not  one  command,  or  one  example 
of  such  worship,  in  the  gospel  of  our  Master;  and  we 
honour  him  too  entirely  to  depart  from  his  plain 
rules  on  so  important  a  subject.  We  read  too  in 
the  Scriptures  such  passages  as  these.  "  My  Father 
is  greater  than  I."  "  This  is  eternal  life,  that 
men  may  know  ihee  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus 
Christ  whom  thou  hast  senty  "  Of  that  day  and 
hour  knoweth  no  man,  not  the  angels  which  are  in 
heaven,  neiiher  the  Son.,  but  the  father,  the  father 
ONLY."  "  1  can  do  nothing  of  myself.'^''  "•  My  doctrine 
is  not  mine,  but  his  who  sent  me.  If  any  will  do  his 
will,  he  shall  know  of  the  doctrine,  ivhcther  it  be  of 
God,  or  whether  I  speak  of  myseip''  We  hear  these 
passages  from  the  very  lips  of  our  honou]"ed  and 
beloved  Lord ;  and  with  these  passages  engraven  on 
our  minds,  and  supported  by  tlie  whole  current  of 
Scripture,  we  dare  not,  we  dare  not  approach  Jesus 
Christ  as  the  only  living,  the  only  true  God.  It  is 
from  reverence  for  his  character  and  instructions, 
from  fear  of  offending  him,  from  a  conscientiousness 


2i 

which  would  prompt  us  to  sacrifice  all  in  his  service^, 
that  we  offer  him  no  homage,  but  in  the  character  of 
the  Son  of  the  only  living  and  true  God. 

Another  method  of  awakening  the  feelings  of 
Christians  on  the  subject  of  the  Trinity,  is  to  address 
their  fears.  It  is  common  with  Trinitarians,  and  Dr. 
Worcester  has  learned  it,  to  say  to  people,  "  If  the 
Trinity  rests  on  the  sure  foundation  of  divine  testi- 
mony, if  Jesus  Christ  is  essentially  divine,  &c.  &:c.  is- 
it  a  light  thing  to  reject  ihe&e  doctrines,  to  refuse  to  Je- 
sus divine  honours,  &;c.  &c."  Appeals  of  this  kind, 
which  are  ordinarily  connected  with  positive  assertions 
of  tlie  truth  of  the  Trinity,  are  worth  a  thousand  argu- 
ments, and  terrify  into  silence  the  doubts  which  lurk 
in  many  minds.  I  mourn  that  Christians  should 
think  so  unworthily  of  Jesus,  as  to  be  moved  by  this 
language.  This  language  evidently  supposes,  that 
Jesus,  our  merciful  Saviour,  overlooks  the  general 
temper  of  our  minds,  the  general  obedience  of  our 
lives,  and,  like  a  jealous  sovereign,  is  prepared  to 
punish  every  deficiency  of  homage  to  himself,  how- 
ever unintentionally  the  tribute  may  be  withheld, 
and  however  sincere  and  upright  the  heart  which 
unconsciously  withholds  it.  And  is  this  the 
character  of  our  merciful  Lord  ?  Suppose  that  a 
human  benefactor,  of  exalted  endowments,  were  to 
confer  on  you  some  great  blessing,  and  suppose  that 
through  ignorance  ot  these  endowments,  you  should 
not  address  him  with  all  the  terms  of  homage  which 
they  deserve,  but  should  yet  be  sincerely  grateful 
for  the  benefit  he  has  conferred,  and  should  love  and 
imitate  his  excellence  as  far  as  it  is  known  ?  Think 
you,  that  he  would  spurn  your  imperfect  tribute,  and 
drive  you  from  his  presence  ?  And  will  Jesus,  whose 
kindness  was  stronger  than  death,  who  bore  so  pa- 
tiently the  low  views  of  his  disciples,  will  he  cast 
from  him  those,  who  at  the  present  day  revere  his 
authority,  study  bis  Avord.  and  labour  to  derive  from 


22 

that  pure  fountain  the  very  truths  which  he  taught 
respecting  himself,  and  respecting  the  service  which 
is  his  due.  I  am  persuaded,  that  at  the  last  day  the 
Trinitarian  will  he  found  in  a  great  errour,  and  were 
I  disposed,  I  could  make  as  moving  an  appeal  to  his 
fears  as  Dr.  Worcester  can  make  to  ours.  But  if 
there  be  a  principle,  which  above  all  others  shines 
resplendently  in  the  sacred  volume,  it  is  this,  that 
he  wlio  breathes  tlie  spirit  and  follows  the  steps  of 
Jesus,  however  faint  or  defective  be  his  views,  will 
certainly  enter  into  the  joy  of  his  Lord. 

Another  method  of  awakening  the  feelings  of  the 
community  against  Unitarian  sentiments  is  this.  Dr. 
Worcester  charges  me  again  and  again  with  attempt- 
ing; studiously  to  conceal  the  differences  between  Uni- 


'& 


y  V 


tarians  and  Trinitarians,  as  if  our  sentiments  were 
too  horrible  to  be  brought  fully  and  fairly  to  the 
light.  He  intimates  that  we  "dread  a  develope- 
ment."  And  does  Dr.  Worcester  really  believe  that 
we  stand  in  awe  of  him,  or  his  "  orthodox"  brethren  ? 
We  respect  many  of  our  opponents,  but  we  dread 
none.  Our  love  of  peace,  they  may  be  assured,  has 
another  origin  than  fear  or  selfish  views.  It  is  from 
deep  conviction,  and  not  from  the  principle  which 
Dr.  Worcester  insinuates,  that  I  have  stated  once 
and  again,  that  the  differences  between  Unitarians 
and  Trinitarians  lie  more  in  sounds  than  in  ideas; 
that  a  barbarous  phraseology  is  the  chief  wall  of 
partition  between  tliese  classes  of  Christians;  and  that 
would  Trinitarians  tell  us  what  they  mean,  their 
system  would  generally  be  found  little  else,  than  a 
mystical  form  of  the  Unitarian  doctrine.  These  two 
c]asse_s  of  Christians  appear  to  me  to  concur  in 
receiving  the  most  interesting  ar^d  practical  trutlis 
of  the  gospel.  Both  believe  in  one  God  of  infinite 
perfection  ;  and  we  must  remember,  that  it  is  this 
perfection  of  God,  and  not  his  unknown  substance, 
wbich  i«  tjie  proper  object   of  the   Christian's   love. 


23 

Both  believe  in  the  ffreat  doctrine,  that  eternal  hfe  is 
the  free  gift  of  God  through  Jesus  Christ.  Both 
learn  from  the  lips  and  life  of  Jesus  the  same  great 
principles  of  duty,  the  same  exalted  views  of  human 
perfection,  and  the  same  path  to  immortality.  I 
could  easily  extend  these  points  of  agreement ;  and 
what  are  the  questions  which  divide  them  ?  Why 
these  ;  first,  Whether  the  One  God  be  three  distinct 
subsistences,*  or  three  persons,  or  three  "  someivhats'''1i' 
called  persons,  as  Dr.  Worcester  says,  for  Avant  of  a 
"  better  Avord  ;"  and  secondly.  Whether  one  of  these 
three  subsistences,  or  improperly  called  persons, 
formed  a  personal  union  with  a  human  soul,  so  that 
the  Infinite  mind,  and  a  human  mind,  each  possessing 
its  own  distinct  consciousness,  became  a  complex  per- 
son. Such  are  the  points,  or  rather  phrases  of  dif- 
ference between  these  Christians.  And  ought  phra- 
ses like  these,  of  which  we  find  not  a  trace  in  the 
Bible,  which  cannot  be  defined  by  those  who  employ 
them,  which  convey  to  common  minds  no  more  mean- 
ing than  words  of  an  unknown  tongue,  and  which 
present  to  the  learned  only  flitting  shadows  of 
thought  instead  of  clear  and  steady  conceptions,  to 
separate  those  who  are  united  in  the  great  principles 
which  I  have  stated  ?  Trinitarians  indeed  are  apt  to 
think  themselves  at  an  immeasurable  distance  from 
Unitarians.  The  reason,  I  think,  is,  that  they 
are  surrounded  with  a  mist  of  obscure  phraseology. 
Were  this  mist  dispersed,  I  believe  that  they  would  be 
surprised  at  discovering  their  proximity  to  the  quar- 
ter of  the  Unitarians,  and  would  learn  that  they  had 
been  wasting  their  hostility  on  a  band  of  friends  and 
brothers.  Whenever  Trinitarians  begin  to  explain 
themselves,  we  find  that  their  three  persons  vanish 
into  three  undejitiablc  somethings,  and  that  God  svffered 

*  Wardlaw. 

t  This  \yorJ  has  beeu  used  by  Trinitarians  in  writing  aud  cocver- 


24 

for  lis  on  the  cross  only  by  a  figure  or  metaphysical 
fiction.  Sach  is  Trinitarianism,  as  it  appears  to  my 
mind.  In  all  this  I  may  mistake,  but  I  have  no  motive 
and  certainly  no  desire  to  practise  "  concealment." 

THE  SYSTEM   OF    EXCLUSION    AND    DENUNCIATION    CONSI- 
DERED. 

The  object  of  Dr.  Worcester,  in  the  representation, 
which  I  have  now  considered,  seems  to  be,  to  prepare 
the  "orthodox"  for  separation  from  their  Unitarian 
brethren.  His  remarks  all  tend  to  teach  them,  that 
they  ought  to  refuse  communion  with  Unitarians  as 
Christians,  to  deny  them  the  character  and  name  of 
Christians,  to  deny  their  title  to  the  ordinances  of  the 
gospel ;  in  a  word  to  disown  them  as  brethren  in 
Christ.  On  this  point  I  shall  now  offer  several  ob- 
servations.— But  first  I  beg  that  it  may  be  dis- 
tinctly understood,  that  the  zeal  of  liberal  Chris- 
tians on  this  point  has  no  other  object,  than  the 
peace  and  prosperity  of  the  church  of  Christ, 
We  are  pleading,  not  our  own  cause,  but  the 
cause  of  our  Master.  The  denial  of  our  christian 
character  by  fallible  and  imperfect  men  gives  us  no 
anxiety.  Our  relation  to  Jesus  Christ  is  not  to  be 
dissolved  by  the  breath  of  man.  Our  christian  rights 
do  not  depend  on  human  passions.  We  have  precise- 
ly the  same  power  over  our  brethren,  which  they  have 
over  us,  and  are  equally  authorized  to  sever  them 
from  the  body  of  Christ.  Still  more ;  if  the  possession 
of  truth  give  superiour  weight  to  denunciation,  we  are 
persuaded  that  our  opposers  will  be  the  severest  suf- 
ferers, should  we  think  fit  to  hurl  back  the  sentence 
of  exclusion  and  condemnation.  But  we  have  no  dis- 
position to  usurp  poAver  over  our  brethren.  We  be- 
lieve, that  the  spirit  which  is  so  studiously  excited 
against  ourselves,  has  done  incalculable  injury  to  the 
cause  of  Christ ;  and  we  pray  God  to  dehver  us  from 
its  power. 


23 

Why  are  the  name,  character,  and  rights  of  Chri%- 
iians  to  be  denied  to  Unitarians  ?  Do  they  deny  that 
Jesus  is  the  Christ  ?  do  they  reject  his  word  as  the 
rule  of  their  faith  and  practice?  do  their  Hves  dis- 
cover indiiference  to  his  authority  and  example  ?  No, 
these  are  not  their  offences.  They  are  deficient  in 
none  of  the  qualifications  of  disciples,  which  were  re- 
quired in  the  primitive  age.  Their  offence  is,  that 
they  read  the  Scriptures  for  themselves,  and  derive 
froin  them  different  opinions  on  certain  points,  from 
those  which  others  have  adopted.  Mistake  of  judg- 
ment is  their  pretended  crime,  and  this  crime  is  laid 
to  their  charge  by  men,  who  are  as  liable  to  mistake 
as  themselves,  and  who  seem  to  them  to  have  fallen 
into  some  of  the  grossest  errours.  A  condemnins:  sen- 
tence  from  such  judges  carries  with  it  no  terrour.  Sor- 
row for  its  uncharitableness,  and  strong  disapproba- 
tion of  its  arrogance,  are  the  principal  feelings  which 
it  inspires. 

It  is  truly  astonishing,  that  Christians  are  not  more 
impressed  with  the  unbecoming  spirit,  the  arrogant 
style,  of  those,who  deny  the  christian  character  to  pro- 
fessed and  exemplary  followers  of  Jesus  Christ,  be- 
cause they  differ  in  opinion  on  some  of  the  most  sub- 
tle and  diflicult  subjects  of  theology.  A  stranger,  at 
hearing  the  language  of  these  denouncers,  would  con- 
clude, without  a  doubt,  that  they  were  clothed  Avith  in- 
fallibility, and  were  appointed  to  sit  in  judgment  on 
their  brethren.  But  for  myself,  I  know  not  a  shadow 
of  pretence  for  the  language  of  superiority  assumed 
by'Dr.  Worcester  and  his  brethren.  Are  they  exempt- 
ed from  the  common  frailty  of  our  nature  }  Has  God 
given  them  superiour  intelligence.^  Were  they  educated 
under  circumstances  more  favourable  to  improvement 
.than  those  whom  they  condemn.  Have  they  brouo^ht 
to  the  scriptures  more  serious,  anxious,  and  unwearied 
attention.^  Or  do  their  lives  express  a  deeper  reverence 
for  God  and  for  his  Son  }  No.  They  are  fallible,  imper- 

4 


26 

feet  men,  posbcssing  no  higher  means,  and  no  strong- 
er motives  foi'  studying  the  word  of  God,  than  their 
Unitarian  brethren.  And  yet  their  language  to  them 
is  virtually  this.  "  We  pronounce  you  to  be  in  er- 
"  rour,  and  in  most  dangerous  errour.  We  know  that 
"  ICC  are  right,  and  that^o?^  are  Avrong  in  regard  to  the 
"  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Gospel.  You  are  unwor- 
"  thy  the  christian  name,  and  unfit  to  sit  Avith  us  at  the 
"  table  of  Christ.  We  offer  you  the  truth,  and  you  re- 
^'ject  it  at  the  peril  of  your  souls.*'  Such  is  the  lan- 
guage of  humble  Christians  to  men,  who  in  capacity 
and  appaient  piety  are  not  inferiour  to  themselves. 
This  languaoe  has  spread  from  the  leaders  through  a 
considerable  part  of  the  community.  ]\'len  in  those 
walks  of  life  ^vhich  leave  them  without  leisure  or  op- 
portunities for  improvement,  are  heard  to  decide  on 
the  most  intricate  points,  and  to  pass  sentence  on  men. 
whose  lives  have  been  devoted  to  trie  study  of  the 
Scriptures.  The  female,  forgetting  the  tenderness  of 
her  sex,  and  the  limited  advantao^es  which  her  educa- 
tion  aOords  for  a  critical  study  of  the  Scriptures,  in- 
veighs with  bitterness;  against  the  damnable  errours 
of  such  men  as  INewton,  Locke,  Clarke  and  Price  ! 
The  young  too  forget  the  modesty  which  belongs  to 
their  age,  and  hurl  condemnation  on  the  head  which 
has  grovrn  gray  in  the  sen  ice  oi  God  and  mankinds 
Need  I  ask,  whether  this  spirit  of  denunciation  for 
supposed  errour  becomes  the  humble  and  fallible  dis- 
ciples of  Jesus  Christ.^ 

In  vindication  of  this  system  of  exclusion  and  de- 
nunciation it  is  often  urged,  that  the  "  honour  of  re- 
ligion," the  "  purity  of  the  church,"  and  the  "  cause  of 
trutl;,"  forbid  those  who  hold  tiie  true  gospel  to  main- 
tain fellowship  with  those  who  support  corrupt  and 
injurious  opinions.  Without  stopping  to  notice  the 
modesty  of  those  who  claim  an  exclusive  knowledge 
of  the  true  gospel,  I  would  answer,  that  the  "  honour 
of  religion"  can  never  sufier  by  admitting  to  christiaH 


^i>7 


^^^m' 


tellowship  men  of  irreproachable  lives,  whilst  it  has 
siitlered  most  severely  from  tliat  narrow  and  unchari- 
table spirit,  wliich  has  excluded  such  men  for  imagin- 
ed errours.  I  answer  again,  that  the  cause  of  truth 
can  never  suffer  by  admitting  to  christian  fellowship 
men,  v/ho  honestly  profess  to  make  the  scriptures  their 
rule  of  faith  and  practice,  whilst  it  has  sutTered  most 
severely  by  substituting  for  this  standard  conformity 
to  human  creeds  and  formularies.  It  is  truly  wonder- 
ful, if  excommunication  for  supposed  errour  be  the 
method  of  purifying  the  church,  that  the  church  has 
been  so  long  and  so  wofuUy  corruoted.  ^Vhatever 
may  have  been  the  deficiencies  of  cnristians  in  other 
respects,  they  have  certainly  discovered  no  criminal 
reluctance  in  applying  this  instrument  of  purification. 
Could  the  thunders  and  lightnings  of  excommunication 
have  corrected  the  atmosphere  of  the  church,  not  one 
pestilential  vapour  would  have  loaded  it  for  ages.  The 
air  of  paradise  would  not  have  been  more  pure,  more 
refreshing.  But  what  does  history  tell  us  ?  It  tells  us, 
that  the  spirit  of  exclusion  and  denunciation  has  con- 
tributed more  than  all  other  causes  to  the  corruption 
of  the  church,  to  the  diffusion  of  errour;  and  has  ren- 
dered the  records  of  the  christian  community  as  black, 
as  bloody,  as  revolting  to  humanity,  as  the  records  of 
empires  founded  on  conquest  and  guilt. 

But  it  is  said,  did  not  the  apostle  denounce  the 
erroneous,  and  pronounce  a  curse  on  the  "  abettors 
of  another  gospel."  This  is  the  strong  hold  of  th© 
friends  of  denunciation.  But  let  us  never  forget, 
that  the  apostles  were  inspired  men,  capable  of  mark- 
ino-  out  with  unerring  certainty  those,  who  substitu- 
ted '•  another  gospel"  for  the  true.  Show  us  their 
successors,  and  we  will  cheerfully  obey  them. 

It  is  also  important  to  recollect  the  character  ot 
those  men.  against  whom  the  apostolick  anathema 
was  directed.  Thev  were  men,  who  knew  distinctly 
what  the  apostles  tautrht.  and  yet  opposed  it :  aad 


28 

who  eiicleavoured  to  sow  tlivisioH,  and  to  gain  fol- 
lowers in  the  churches  which  the  apostles  had  plant- 
ed. These  men,  resisting  the  known  instructions  of 
the  authorized  and  inspired  teachers  of  the  gospel, 
and  discovering  a  factious,  selfish,  mercenary  spirit, 
were  justly  excluded  as  unworthy  the  christian  name. 
But  what  m  common  with  these  men,  have  the  Chris- 
tians whom  Dr.  Worcester  and  his  friends  denounce  ? 
Do  tlicse  oppose  what  they  know  to  be  the  doctrine 
of  Christ  and  his  apostles  ?  Do  they  not  revere  Jesus 
and  his  inspired  messengers  ?  Do  they  not  dissent 
from  Dr.  Worcester,  simply  because  they  believe 
that  Dr.  Worcester  dissents  from  their  Lord  } — Let 
us  not  forget,  that  the  contest  at  the  present  day  is 
not  between  the  apostles  themselves^  and  men  who 
oppose  their  known  instructions ;  but  between  unin- 
spired Christians,  who  equally  receive  the  apostles 
as  authorized  teachers  of  the  gospel,  and  who  only 
differ  in  judgment  as  to  the  interpretation  of  their 
writings.  How  unjust  then  is  it  for  any  class  of 
Christians  to  confound  their  opponents  with  the  fac- 
tious and  unprincipled  sectarians  of  the  primitive 
age.  Mistake  in  judgment  is  the  heaviest  charge 
which  one  denomination  has  now  a  right  to  urge 
against  another  ;  and  do  we  find  that  the  apostles 
ever  denounced  mistake  as  "  awful  and  fatal  hostili- 
ty" to  the  gospel,  that  they  pronounced  anathemas 
on  men  who  wished  to  obey,  but  who  misappre- 
hended their  doctrines.  The  apostles  well  remem- 
bered, tliat  none  ever  mistook  more  widely  than  them- 
selves. They  remembered  too  the  lenity  of  their  Lord 
towards  their  errours,  and  this  lenity  they  cherished 
and  laboured  to  diffuse. 

BufDr.  Worcester  will  ask,  if  Christians  have  not 
a  right  to  bear  '•  solemn  testimony"  against  opinions 
which  are  "  utterly  subversive  of  the  gospel,  and 
most  dangerous  to  men's  eternal  interests."  To  this 
T  answer,  tliat  the  opinions  of  men,  who  discover 


2,^ 

equal  intelligence  and  piety  with  ourselves,  arc  enti- 
tled to  respectful  consideration.  If  after  inquiry 
they  seem  erroneous  and  injurious,  we  are  authoiized 
and  bound,  according  to  our  ability,  to  expose,  by 
fair  and  serious  argument,  their  nature  and  tendency. 
But  I  maintain,  that  we  have  no  right  as  individuals, 
or  in  an  associated  capacity,  to  bear  our  "  solemn 
testimony"  against  these  opinions,  by  menacing  with 
ruin  the  Christian  who  listens  to  them,  or  by  brand- 
ing them  with  the  most  terrifying  epithets,  for  the 
purpose  of  preventing  candid  inquiry  into  their 
truth.  This  is  the  fashionable  mode  of  ''  bearing 
testimony,"  and  it  is  a  weapon  which  will  always  be 
most  successful  in  the  hands  of  the  proud,  the  positive 
and  overbearing,  who  are  most  impatient  of  contra- 
diction, and  have  least  regard  to  the  rights  of  their 
brethren. 

But  whatever  may  be  the  right  of  Christians,  as  lo 
bearing  testimony  against  opinions  which  they  deem 
injurious,  I  deny,  that  they  have  any  right  to  pass  a 
condemning  sentence,  on  account  of  these  opmions, 
on  the  characters  of  men  whose  general  deportment  is 
conformed  to  the  gospel  of  Christ.  Both  scripture 
and  reason  unite  in  teaching,  that  the  best  and  only 
standard  of  character  is  the  life;  and  ho  who  over- 
looks the  testimony  of  a  christian  liie,  and  grounds  a 
sentence  of  condemnation  on  opinions,  about  which 
he  as  well  as  his  brother  may  err,  violates  most  fla- 
grantly the  duty  of  just  and  candid  judgment,  and 
opposes  the  peaceful  and  charitable  spirit  of  the  gos- 
pel. Jesus  Christ  says,  "By  ihc'ir  fruits  shall  ye 
know  them."  "  Not  every  one,  that  saith  unto  mo, 
Lord,  Lord,shall  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,but 
he  who  doeth  the  will  of  my  Father  wliich  is  in  heaven." 
"  Ye  are  my  friends,  if  ye  do  whatsoever  I  command 
you.'^  "  He  that  heareth  and  doeth  these  my  sayings.'' 
1.  e.  the  precepts  of  the  sermon  on  the  mount,  "I  will 
liken  him  to  a  man  who  byilt  his  house  upon  a  rock." 


•it) 

It  Avouid  be  cany  to  multiply  similar  passages.  The 
whole  scriptores  teach  us,  that  he  and  he  only  is  a 
Christian,  whose  life  is  governed  by  the  precepts  of 
the  gospel,  and  that  by  this  standard  alone,  the 
profession  of  this  religion  should  be  tried.  We 
do  not  deny,  that  our  brethren  have  a  right  to  form 
a  judgment  as  to  our  christian  character.  But  we 
insist  that  we  have  a  right  to  be  judged  by  the  fairest, 
(he  most  approved,  and  the  most  settled  rules,  by 
which  character  can  be  tried  ;  and  when  these  are 
overlooked,  and  the  most  uncertain  standard  is  ap- 
plied, we  are  injured  ;  and  an  assault  on  character, 
which  rests  on  this  ground,  deserves  no  better  name 
than  defamation  and  persecution. 

I  know  that  this  suggestion  o^  persecution  will   be 
indignantly  repelled  by  those  who  deal  most  largely 
in  denunciation.     But  persecution  is  a  wrong  or  in- 
jury inflicted  for  opinions,   and   surely   assaults    on 
character  fall  under  this  definition.     Some  persons 
seem  to  think,  that  persecution   consists  in  pursuing 
errour  with  fire  and  sword;  and  that  therefore  it 
has  ceased  to  exist,  except  in  distempered  imagina- 
tions, because  no    class  of  Christians  among  us  is 
armed  with  these  terrible  weapons.    But,  no.     The 
form  is  changed,  but  the  spirit  lives.     Persecution 
has  given  up  its  halter  and  fagot,  but   it  breathes 
venom  from  its  lips,  and  secretly  blasts  what  it  can- 
not openly  destroy.     For  example,  a  liberal  minis- 
ter, however  circumspect  in  his  walk,  however  irre- 
proachable in  all  his  relations,  no  sooner  avows  his 
honest  convictions  on  some  of  the  most  difficult  subjects, 
than   his  name  begins  to  be  a  by-word.    A  thousand 
suspicions   are  infused  into  his  hearers ;  and  it  is  in- 
sinuated, that  he  is  a  minister  of  satan,  in  "  the  guise 
of  an  angel  of  light."     At  a  little  distance  from  his 
home,  caiumnj^  assumes  a  bolder  tone.     He  is  pro- 
nounced an  infidel,  and  it  is  gravely  asked,  whether 
he  believes  in  a  God.     At  a  greater  distance,  his 


3J 

morals  are  assailed.  He  is  a  maH  of  the  world. 
"  leading  souls  to  hell,"  to  gratify  the  most  selfish 
passions.  But  notwithstanding  all  this,  he  must  not 
say  a  word  about  persecution,  for  reports  like  these 
rack  no  limbs ;  they  do  not  even  injure  a  hair  of 
his  head ;  and  how  then  is  he  persecuted  ? — Now  for 
myself,  I  am  as  willing  that  my  adversary  should  take 
my  purse  or  my  life,  as  that  he  should  rob  mc  of  my 
reputation,  rob  me  of  the  affection  of  my  friends,  and 
of  my  means  of  doing  good.  "  He  who  takes  from 
me  my  good  name,"  takes  the  best  possession  of 
which  human  power  can  deprive  me.  .  It  is  true,  that 
a  Christian's  reputation  is  comparatively  a  light  ob- 
ject ;  and  so  is  his  property,  so  is  his  life ;  all  arc 
light  things  to  him,  whose  hope  is  full  of  immortality. 
But,  of  all  worldly  blessings,  an  honest  reputa- 
tion is  to  many  of  us  the  most  precious ;  and  he  Avho 
robs  us  of  it,  IS  the  most  injurious  of  mankind,  i^nd 
among  the  worst  of  persecutors.  Let  not  the  friend* 
of  denunciation  attempt  to  escape  this  charge,  by 
pleading  their  sense  of  duty,  and  their  sincere  de- 
sire to  promote  the  cause  of  truth.  St.  Dominic 
was  equally  sincere,  when  he  built  the  inquisition ; 
and  I  doubt  not  that  many  torturers  of  Christians  have 
fortified  their  reluctant  minds,  at  the  moment  of  ap- 
plying the  rack  and  the  burning  iron,  by  the  sincere 
conviction,  that  the  cause  of  truth  required  the  sacri- 
fice of  its  foes.  I  beg  that  these  remarks  may  not  be 
applied  indiscriminately  to  the  party  called  "  ortho- 
dox," among  whom  are  multitudes,whose  humility  and 
charity  would  revolt  from  making  themselves  the 
standards  of  christian  piety,  and  from  assailing  the 
christian  character  of  their  brethren. 

Many  other  considerations  may  be  added  to  those 
which  have  been  already  urged,  against  the  system 
of  excluding  from  christian  fellowship  men  of  upright 
lives,  on  account  of  their  opinions.  It  necessarily 
generates   perpetual   discord   in  the  church.     ,Mei^ 


32 

<liifer  in  opinions  as  much  as  in  features.  No  two 
minds  are  perfectly  accordant.  The  shades  of  belief 
are  infinitely  diversified.  Amidst  this  immense  variety 
of  sentiment,  every  man  is  right  in  his  own  eyes. 
Every  man  discovers  errours  in  the  creed  of  his  bro- 
ther. Every  man  is  prone  to  magnify  the  impor- 
tance of  his  own  peculiarities,  and  to  discover  danger 
in  the  peculiarities  of  others.  This  is  human  nature. 
Everyman  is  partial  to  his  own  opinions,  because  they 
are  his  own,  and  his  self-will  and  pride  are  wounded 
by  contradiction.  Now  what  must  we  expect,  when 
beings  so  erring,  so  divided  in  sentiment,  and  so  apt 
to  be  unjust  to  the  views  of  others,  assert  the  right 
of  excluding;  one  another  from  the  christian  church 
on  account  of  imagined  crrour  ?  As  the  Scriptures 
confine  this  right  to  no  individual  and  to  no  body  of 
Christians,  it  belongs  alike  to  all ;  and  what  must  we 
expect,  when  Christians  of  all  capacities  and  disposi- 
tions, the  ignorant,  prejudiced,  and  self-conceited, 
imagine  it  their  duty  to  prescribe  opinions  to  Chris- 
tendom, and  to  open  or  to  shut  the  door  of  the  church 
Recording  to  the  decision  which  their  neighbours  may 
form  on  some  of  the  most  perplexing  points  of  theolo- 
gy ?  This  question  unhappily  has  received  answer 
upon  answer  in  ecclesiastical  history.  We  there  see 
christians  denouncing  and  excommunicating  one 
another  for  supposed  errour,  until  every  denomination 
has  been  pronounced  accursed  by  some  portion  of  the 
christian  world  ;  so  that  were  the  curses  of  men  to 
prevail,  not  one  human  being  would  enter  heaven. 
To  mc  it  appears,  that  to  plead  for  the  right  of  exclud- 
ing men  of  blameless  lives,  on  account  of  their  opinions, 
is  to  sound  the  peal  of  perpetual  and  universal  war. 
Arm  men  witii  this  power,  and  we  shall  have  "nothing 
but  thunder."*  Some  persons  are  sufficiently  simple 
to  imagine,  that  if  this  "  horrid  Unitarianism"  were 
once  hunted  down,  and  put  quietly  into  its  grave,  the 
church  A\  ould  be  at  peace.  But,  no  :  our  present  con- 


33 

tests  have  their  origin,  not  in  the  "  enormities"  of  Uni- 
tarianism,  but  very  much  in  the  principles  of  human 
nature,  in  the  love  of  power,  in  impatience  of  contra- 
diction, in  men's  passion  for  imposing  their  own 
views  upon  others,  in  the  same  causes  which  render 
them  anxious  to  make  proselytes  to  all  their  opinions. 
Were  Unitarianism  quietly  interred,  anotlicr  and 
another  hideous  form  of  errour  would  start  up 
before  the  zealous  guardians  of  the  "  purity  of 
the  church."  The  Armiiiian,  from  whom  the 
pursuit  has  been  diverted  for  a  time  by  his  more 
oifending  Unitarian  brother,  would  soon  be  awa- 
kened from  his  dream  of  security,  by  the  clamour 
of  denunciation ;  and  should  the  Arminian  fall 
a  prey,  the  Calvinists  would  then  fmd  time  to 
look  into  the  controversies  among  themselves,  and 
almost  every  class  would  discover,  v;ith  the  ea<yle 
eye  of  their  brethren  at  New-York,  that  those  who 
differ  from  them  hold  "  another  gospel,"  and  ought 
to  be  "  resisted  and  denounced."  Thus  tlie  wars  of 
Christians  will  be  perpetual.  Never  will  there  be 
peace,  until  Christians  agree  to  differ,  and  agree  to 
look  for  the  evidences  of  Christian  character  in 
the  temper  and  the  life. 

Another  argument  against  this  practice  of  denoun- 
cing the  supposed  errours  of  sincere  professors  of 
Christianity,  is  this.  It  exalts  to  supremacy  in  the 
church,  men,  who  have  the  least  claim  to  influence. 
Humble,  meek,  and  affectionate  Christians  are  least 
disposed  to  make  creeds  for  tlieir  brethren,  and  to  de- 
nounce those  who  differ  from  them.  On  the  contrary, 
the  impetuous,  proud,  and  enthusiastick,  men  who  can- 
not or  will  not  weigh  the  arguments  of  opponents,  are 
always  most  positive,  and  most  unsparing  in  denun- 
ciation. These  take  the  lead  in  a  system  of  exclu- 
sion. They  have  no  false  modesty,  no  false  charity, 
to  shackle  their  zeal  in  framing  fundamentals  for 
their   brethren,   and   in   punishing  the  obstinate  in 

5 


34 

errour.  The  consequence  is,  that  creeds  are  formed 
which  exclude  from  Christ's  church  some  of  \m 
truest  followers,  which  outrage  reason  as  well  as 
revelation,  and  \vhich  subsonuent  aj^es  are  oblio-ed 
to  mutilate  and  explam  away,  lest  the  whole  religion 
be  rejected  by  men  of  rejection.  Such  has  been  the 
history  of  the  church.  It  is  stiange  that  we  do  not 
learn  Avisdom  from  the  past.  What  man,  who  feels 
his  own  fallibility,  who  sees  the  errours  into  which 
the  positive  and  "  orthodox''  of  former  times  have 
been  betrayed,  and  wlio  considers  his  own  utter 
inability  to  decide  on  the  degree  of  truth,  which  evei-v 
mind,  of  every  capacity,  must  receive  in  order  to  sal- 
vation, will  not  tremble  at  the  responsibility  of  pre- 
scribing to  his  brethren,  in  his  own  words^  the  views 
they  must  maintain  on  the  most  perplexing  subjects 
of  religion  ?  Humility  will  always  leave  this  work  to 
others. 

Another  important  consideration  is,  that  this  sys- 
tem of  excluding  men  of  apparent  sincerity,  for  their 
opinions,  entirely  subverts  free  inquiry  into  the  scrip- 
tures. ^Vhen  once  a  particular  system  is  surrounded 
by  this  bulwark ;  when  once  its  defenders  have 
brought  the  majority  to  believe,  that  the  rejection  of 
it  is  a  mark  of  depravity  and  perdition,  what  but  the 
name  of  liberty  is  left  to  Christians  ?  The  obstacles  to 
inquiry  are  as  real,  and  may  be  as  powerful,  as  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  the  incjulsition.  The  multitude 
dare  not  think,  and  the  thinking  dare  not  speak.  The 
right  of  private  judgment  may  thus,  in  a  protestant 
country,  be  reduced  to  a  nullity.  It  is  true,  that  men 
are  sent  to  the  scriptures ;  but  they  are  told  before 
they  go,  that  they  will  be  driven  from  the  church  on 
earth  and  in  heaven,  unless  they  find  in  the  scriptures 
the  doctrines  which  are  embodied  in  the  popular 
creed.  They  are  told,  indeed,  to  inquire  for  them- 
selves ;  but  they  are  also  told,  at  what  points  inquiry 
must  arrive  ;  and  the  sentence  of  exclusion  hangs  ovey 


35 

them,  if  they  happen  to  stray  with  some  of  the  besl 
and  wisest  men  into  forbidden  paths.  Now  this 
"  protestant  Hberty"  is,  in  one  respect,  more  irrita- 
ting than  Papal  bondage.  It  mocks  as  well  as  en- 
slaves us.  It  talks  to  us  courteously  as  friends  and 
brethren,  whilst  it  rivets  our  chains.  It  invites  and 
even  charges  us  to  look  with  our  own  eyes,  but  with 
the  same  breath  Avarns  us  against  seeing  any  thing 
which  orthodox  eyes  have  not  seen  before  us.  Is 
this  a  state  of  things  favourable  to  serious  inquiry  in- 
to the  truths  of  the  gospel ;  yet,  how  long  has  tlie 
church  been  groaning  under  diis  cruel  yoke  ? 

Another  objection  to  this  system  of  excluding  pro- 
fessed disciples  of  Christ,  on  account  of  their  opin- 
ions, is,  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  great  piinciples 
of  Congregationalism.  In  churches,  where  the  pow- 
er is  lodged  in  a  few  individuals,  who  are  supposed 
to  be  the  most  learned  men  in  the  community,  the 
work  of  marking  out  and  excluding  the  enoneous 
may  seem  less  difficult.  But  among  Congregation- 
alists,  the  tribunal  before  which  the  oifender  is  to  be 
brought  is  the  whole  churchy  consisting  partly  of 
men  in  humble  circumstances,  and  of  unimproAed 
minds  ;  partly  of  men  engaged  in  active  and  pressing 
business ;  and  partly  of  men  of  education,  whose 
studies  have  been  directed  to  law  and  medicine. 
Now,  is  this  a  tribunal,  before  which  the  most  intri- 
cate points  of  theology  are  to  be  discussed,  and  seri- 
ous inquirers  are  to  answer  for  opinions,  which  they 
have  perhaps  examined  more  laboriously  and  faith- 
fully than  all  their  judges  ?  ^\'ouid  a  church  of  hum- 
ble men,  conscious  of  their  limited  opportunities, 
consent  to  try  for  these  pretended  ciimes  prol'cssing 
Christians,  as  intelligent,  as  honest,  and  as  exemplary. 
as  themselves  ?  It  is  evident,  that  in  the  business  o{ 
excluding  men  for  opinions,  a  church  can  be  little  moic 
than  the  tool  of  the  minister,  or  a  few  inliuential 
members ;  and  our  churches  are,  in  general,  too  in- 


36 

dependent  and  too  upright  to  take  this  part  in  so  so- 
lemn a  transaction.  To  correct  their  deliciencies,  and 
to  quicken  their  zeal  on  tiiis  point,  we  are  now  threat- 
ened with  new  trihunah^  or  cons^ociations,  whose  office 
it  will  he  to  try  ministers  for  their  errours,  to  inspect 
the  churches,  and  Ijp  advise  and  assist  them  in  the  ex- 
tirpation of  "heresy."  V/hilst  the  laity  are  slumber- 
ina*-)  the  ancient  and  free  constitution  of  our  churches 
is  silently  undermined,  and  is  crumbling  away.  Smce 
argument  is  insuflicient  to  produce  uniformity  of 
opinion,  recourse  nsust  be  had  to  more  powerful  in- 
struments of  conviction  ;  I  mean,  to  ecclesiastical 
couKTs.  And  are  this  people  indeed  prepared  to 
submit  to  this  most  degrading  form  of  vassalage  ,•  a 
vassalage,  which  reaches  and  palsies  the  mmof,  and 
imposes  on  it  the  dreams  and  fictions  of  men,  for  the 
everlasting  truth  of  God  ! 

These  remarks  lead  me  to  the  last  consideration, 
which  I  shall  urge,  against  the  proposed  system  of 
exclusion  and  separation.  This  system  avIU  shake  to 
the  foundation  our  religious  Institutions,  and  destroy 
many  habits  and  connexions  which  have  had  the 
happiest  iniluence  on  the  religious  character  of  this 
people.  In  the  first  place,  if  christian  communion 
and  all  acknowledgments  of  christian  character  arc 
to  be  defiled  on  the  ground  of  difference  of  opinion, 
the  annual  "  Convention  of  Congregational  ministers, 
of  Massachusetts,''  that  ancient  bond  of  union,  must 
be  dissolved  ;  and  in  its  dissolution  we  shall  lose  the 
edifying,  honourable,  and  rare  example  of  ministers 
regularly  assembling,  not  to  exercise  power  and  to 
fetter  the  conscience,  bat  to  reciprocate  kind  affec- 
tion, and  to  unite  in  sending  relief  to  the  families  of 
their  deceased  brethren.  This  event  may  gladden 
the  heart  of  the  sectarian  ;  it  avIH  carry  no  joy  to  the 
widow  and  orphan. — in  the  next  place,  the  "  Associ- 
ations of  ministers,"  in  our  different  counties  must 
in  many  cases  be  broken  up,  to  make  room  for  new 


3/ 

associations,  founded  on  similarity  of  opinion.  Thus, 
that  intercourse,  which  noAV  subsists  between  minis- 
ters of  different  persuasions,  and  v/hich  tends  to  en- 
large the  mind,  and  to  give  a  libcrahty  to  the  fechn."-s. 
will  be  diminished,  if  not  destroyed  ;  and  ministers, 
becoming  more  contracted  and  exclusive,  will  com- 
municate more  of  this  unhappy  spirit  to  their  socie- 
ties.— In  the  next  place,  neighbouring  churches, 
which,  from  their  very  foundaUon,  liave  cultivated 
christian  communion,  and  counselled  and  comforted 
each  other,  will  be  mutually  estranged,  and  catching 
the  temper  of  their  religious  guides,  will  exchange 
fellowship  for  denunciation;  and  instead  of  de- 
lighting in  each  other's  prosperity,  will  seek  each 
other's  destruction. — Again,  in  the  same  church, 
where  Christians  of  different  views  have  long  ac- 
knowledged each  other  as  disciples  of  one  Master^ 
and  have  partaken  the  same  feast  of  charity,  angry 
divisions  will  break  forth,  parties  will  be  marshalled 
under  different  leaders,  the  sentence  of  excommunica- 
tion will  be  hurled  by  the  majority  on  their  guiltless 
brethren,  (if  the  majority  should  be  "orthodox,*')  ancj 
thus  anger,  heart-burnings,  and  bitter  recriminations 
will  spread  through  many  of  our  towns  and  churches. 
— Again  ;  many  of  our  religious  societies  will  be  rent 
asunder,  their  ministers  dismissed,  and  religious  insti- 
tutions cease.  It  is  well  known,  tJiat  many  of  our 
country  parishes  are  able  to  support  but  a  single 
minister.  At  the  same  time,  they  are  divided  in  sen- 
timent ;  and  nothing  but  a  spirit  of  charitv  and  for- 
bearance has  produced  that  union,  by  which  publick 
worsliip  has  been  maintained.  Once  let  the  proposed 
war  be  proclaimed,  let  the  standard  of  parly  be  rais- 
ed, and  a  minister  must  look  for  support  to  that  party 
only  to  which  he  is  attached.  An  "  orthodox"  min-. 
ister  should  blush  to  ask  it  from  men,  whom  he  de- 
nounces for  honest  opinions,  and  to  whom  he  denies 
all  the  ordinances  of  the  gospel.     It  surely  cannot  bo 


38 

expected  that  liberal  Christians  will  contribute,  by 
their  property,  to  uphold  a  system  of  exclusion  and 
intolerance  directed  against  themselves.  W  hat  then 
will  be  the  fate  of  many  of  our  societies  ?  Their 
ministers,  even  now,  can  with  difficulty  maintain  the 
Coniiict  with  other  denominations  :  must  they  not 
sink,  when  deserted  by  their  most  efficient  friends  ? 
Many  societies  will  be  left,  as  sheep  without  a  shep- 
herd, a  prey  to  those  whom  we  call  Sectarians,  but 
who  will  no  longer  have  an  exclusive  right  to  the 
name,  if  the  system  of  division,  which  has  been  pro- 
posed, be  adopted.  Many  ministers  will  be  compel- 
led to  leave  the  field  of  their  labours  and  their  pro- 
spects of  usefulness  ;  and  I  fear  the  ministry  will  lose 
its  hold  on  the  affection  and  ^  eneration  of  men,  Avhen 
it  shall  have  engendered  so  much  division  and  con- 
tention.— But  this  is  not  all.  The  system  of  denying 
the  christian  name  to  those  who  diiier  from  us  in  in- 
terpreting the  scriptures,  will  carry  discord  not  only 
into  churches,  but  families.  In  how  many  instances 
are  heads  of  families  divided  in  opinion  on  the  pre- 
sent subjects  of  controversy.  Hitherto  they  have 
loved  each  other  as  partakers  of  the  same  glorious 
hopes,  and  have  repaired  in  their  domes  lick  joys  and 
sorrows  to  the  same  God  (as  they  imagined,) 
through  the  same  Mediator.  But  now  they  are 
taught,  that  they  have  different  Gods  and  different  gos' 
pels^  and  are  taught  that  the  friends  of  truth  are  not 
to  hold  communion  with  its  rejectors.  Let  this  doc- 
trine be  received,  and  one  of  the  tenderest  ties  by 
which  many  wedded  hearts  are  knit  together  will  be 
dissolved.  The  family  altar  nuist  fall.  Religion 
will  be  known  in  many  a  domestick  retreat,  not  as  a 
bond  ~of  union,  but  a  subject  of  debate,  a  source  of 
discord  or  depression. 

Now  I  ask,  for  what  boon  are  all  these  sacrifices  to 
be  made  ?  The  great  end  is,  that  certain  opinions, 
which  have  been  embraced  by  many  serious  and  i»- 


39 

quiring  Christians  as  the  truth  of  God,  may  be  driven 
from  the  church,  and  be  dreaded  by  the  jjeople  as 
among  the  worst  of  crimes.  Uniformity  of  opinion^ 
that  an-y  good,  which  emperors,  popes,  councils,  sy- 
nods, bishops,  and  ministers  have  been  seeking  for 
ages,  by  edicts,  creeds,  threatenings,  excommunica- 
tions, inquisitions  and  flames,  this  is  the  great 
object  of  the  system  of  exclusion,  separation,  and 
denunciation  which  is  now  to  be  introduced.  To 
this  we  are  to  sacrifice  our  estabhshed  liabits  and 
bonds  of  union,  and  this  is  to  be  pursued  by  means, 
which,  as  many  reflecting  men  believe,  threaten  our 
dearest  riohts  and  liberties. 

It  13  smcerely  hoped,  that  reflecting  laymen  will  no 
longer  shut  their  eyes  on  this  suljject.  It  is  a  melan- 
choly fact,  that  our  long  estabhshed  congregational 
form  of  church  government  is  menaced,  and  tribunals 
unknown  to  our  churches,  and  unknown,  as  we  be- 
lieve, to  the  scriptures,  are  to  be  introduced  ;  and  in- 
troduced for  the  very  purpose,  that  the  supposed  er- 
rours  and  mistakes  of  ministers  and  private  Christians 
may  be  tried  and  punished  as  heresies,  i.  e.  as  crimes. 
In  these  tribunals,  as  in  all  ecclesiastical  bodies,  the 
clergy,  who  make  theology  their  profession,  will  of 
necessity  have  a  preponderating  influence,  so  that 
the  question  now  before  the  publick  is  in  fact  only  a 
new  form  of  the  old  controversy,  which  has  agitated 
all  ages,  viz.  whether  the  clergy  shall  think  for  the  Iciity, 
or  prescribe  to  them  their  relioion  ?  \Vere  this  question 
fairly  proposed  to  the  publick,  there  would  be  but 
one  answer  ;  but  it  is  wrapped  up  in  a  dark  phraseo- 
logy about  the  purity  and  order  of  the  church,  a, 
phraseology,  which,  1  believe,  imposes  on  multitudes 
of  ministers  as  well  as  laymen,  and  induces  acquies- 
cence in  measures,  the  real  tendency  of  which  they 
would  abhor.  It  is,  I  hope,  from  no  feelino-  of  party, 
but  from  a  sincere  regard  to  the  religion  of  Christ,  that 
!  would  rouse  the  slumbering  minds  of  this  community 


40 

to  the  dangers  which  hang  over  their  rehgious  insti- 
tutions. No  power  is  so  rapidly  accumulated,  or  so 
dreadfully  abused  as  ecclesiastical  power.  It  assails 
men  with  menaces  of  eternal  wo,  unless  they  submit, 
and  gradually  awes  the  most  stubborn  and  strongest 
minds  into  subjectit»>Ti.  I  mean  not  to  ascribe  the  in- 
tention of  introducing  ecclesiastical  tyranny  to  any 
class  of  Christians  among  us  ;  but,  I  believe  that  ma- 
ny, in  the  fervour  of  a  zeal  which  may  be  essentially 
virtuous,  are  about  to  touch  with  unhallowed  hands 
the  ark  of  God,  to  support  Christianity  by  measures 
which  its  mild  and  charitable  spirit  abhors.  I  believe, 
that  many,  overlooking  the  principles  of  human  na- 
ture, and  the  history  of  the  church,  are  about  to  set 
in  motion  a  spring  of  which  they  know  not  the  force, 
and  cannot  calculate  the  etlects.  I  believe,  that  the 
seed  of  spu'itual  tyranny  is  sown,  and  although  to  a 
careless  spectator  it  may  seem  the  "  smallest  of  all 
seeds,"  it  has  yet,  within  itself,  a  fatal  principle  of 
increase,  and  may  yet  darken  this  region  of  our  coun- 
try with  its  deadly  branches. 

The  time  is  come,  when  the  friends  of  christian 
liberty  and  christian  charity  are  called  to  awake,  and 
to  remember  their  duties  to  themselves,  to  posterity, 
and  to  the  church  of  Christ.  The  time  is  come,  when 
the  rights  of  conscience  and  the  freedom  of  our 
churches  must  be  defended  with  zeal.  The  time  is 
come,  when  menace  and  denunciation  must  be 
met  v.ith  a  spirit,  which  will  show,  that  we  dread 
not  the  frowns,  and  lean  not  on  the  favour  of 
man.  The  time  is  come,  when  every  expression  of 
superiority  on  the  part  of  our  brethren  should  be  re- 
pelled_as  criminal  usurpation.  But  in  doing  this,  let 
the  friends  of  liberal  and  genuine  Christianity  remem- 
ber the  spirit  of  their  religion.  Let  no  passion  or 
bitterness  dishonour  their  sacred  cause.  In  contend- 
ing for  the  gospel,  let  them  not  lose  it  virtues  or 
forfeit  its  promises. — We  are  indeed  called  to  pass 


41 

through  one  of  the  severest  trials  of  human  virtue, 
the  trial  of  controversy.  We  should  carry  with  us  a 
sense  of  its  danger.  Religion,  when  made  a  subject 
of  debate,  seems  often  to  lose  its  empire  over  the 
heart  and  life.  The  mild  and  affectionate  spirit  of 
Christianity  gives  place  to  angry  recriminations  and 
cruel  surmises.  Fair  dealing,  uprightness,  and  truth 
are  exchanged  for  the  quibbling  and  arts  of  sophistry. 
The  devotional  feelings,  too,  decline  in  warmth  and 
tenderness.  Let  us  then  watch  and  pray.  Let  us 
take  heed  that  the  weapons  of  our  warfare  be  not 
carnal.  Whilst  we  repel  usurpation,  let  us  be  just 
to  the  general  rectitude  of  many  by  wliom  our 
christian  rights  are  invaded.  Whilst  we  repel  the 
uncharitable  censures  of  men,  let  us  not  forget  that 
deep  humility  and  sense  of  unworthiness,  with  which 
we  should  ever  appear  before  our  Maker,  hi  our 
zeal  to  maintain  the  great  truth,  that  our  Father  in 
Heaven  is  alone  the  Supreme  God,  let  us  not  neglect 
that  intercourse  with  him,  without  which  the  purest 
conceptions  will  avail  little  to  enthrone  him  in  our 
hearts,  hi  our  zeal  to  hold  fast  the  "word  of  Christ" 
in  opposition  to  human  creeds  and  formularies,  let  us 
not  forget,  that  our  Lord  demands  another  and  a  still 
more  unsuspicious  confession  of  him,  even  the  exhibi- 
tion of  his  spirit  and  religion  in  our  lives. 

The  controversy  in  which  we  are  engaged  is  in- 
deed painful ;  but  it  was  not  chosen,  but  forced  upon 
us,  and  we  ought  to  regard  it  as  a  part  of  the  disci- 
pline to  which  a  wise  Providence  has  seen  fit  to  sub- 
ject us.  Like  all  our  other  trials,  it  is  designed  to 
promote  our  moral  perfection.  I  trust,  too,  that  it  is 
designed  to  promote  the  cause  of  truth.  Whilst  I 
would  speak  dlfhdently  of  the  future,  I  still  hope,  that 
a  brighter  day  is  rising  on  the  christian  ciuirch,  than 
it  has  yet  enjoyed.  The  gospel  is  to  sliine  forth  in 
its  native  glory.  The  violent  excitement,  by  which 
some  of  the  corruptions  of  this  divine  system  arc  now 

6 


42 

9uppor<^ed,  cannot  be  permanent ;  and  the  uncharlta- 
bleness  with  which  they  are  enforced,  will  re-act,  like 
the  persecutions  of  the  church  of  Rome,  in  favour 
of  truth.  Already  we  have  the  comfort  of  seeing 
many  disposed  to  inquire,  and  to  inquire  without 
that  terrour,  which  has  bound  as  witii  a  spell  so 
many  minds.  We  doubt  not,  that  this  inquiry  will 
result  in  a  deep  conviction  that  Christianity  is  yet  dis- 
figured by  errours  which  have  been  transmitted  from 
ages  of  darkness.  Of  this,  at  least,  we  are  sure,  that 
inquiry,  by  discovering  to  men  the  difficulties  and 
obscurities  Avhicli  attend  the  present  topicks  of  con- 
troversy, will  terminate  in  what  is  infinitely  more 
desirable  than  doctrinal  concord,  in  the  diffusion  of  a 
mild,  candid,  and  charitable  temper,  I  pray  God, 
that  this  most  happy  consummation  may  be  in  no 
degree  obstructed  by  any  unchristian  feelings,  which, 
notwithstanding  my  sincere  efforts,  have  escaped  me 
in  the  present  controversy. 


NOTE. 


It  would  be  easy  to  point  out  many  exceptionable  pas- 
sages 111  Di.  Worcesfer's  letter  ;  bul  1  wish  1o  "absi.-.in  even 
fro.ii  ilie  appeal  ance"  of  that  minute  and  carping  ciilicisui,  so 
coiumon  in  controversy,  which,  overlooking  Ihe  general  im- 
port ui' a  book,  and  the  great  poinis  of  controversy,  seizes 
on  unguarded  expressions,  exposes  petty  inaccuracies,  ex- 
torts inferences  of  which  the  author  never  dieamed,  and. 
aims  to  humble  an  opponent  instead  of  meeting  the  great 
question  in  dispute.  There  are,  however,  a  lew  particulars 
in  Dr.  Worcester's  letter,  which  ought  not  to  be  passed  over 
in  that  silence,  which  in  the  present  and  in  my  former  re- 
marks I  have  observed  tov/ard'o  luany  objectionable  expres- 
sions and  passages. 

A  common  reader  would  imagine  from  Dr.  Worcester's 
language,  that  from  the  age  of  Christ  to  the  present  time, 
there  has  been  a  succession  of  Christians  called  "  orlhodox," 
who  have  agreed  in  opinion  on  the  disputed  doctrines  ol  liie 
gospel.  But  this  is  a  fiction.  The  opinions  of  some  of  the 
"  most  orthodox"  in  New-England,  on  the  Trinity,  would 
have  exposed  them,  I  fear,  to  excoinauinication  by  the  "  or- 
thodox" m  some  of  the  early  ages  of  Christianity.  If  I  were 
to  deGne  Ihe  word  "  orthodox,"  I  should  say  that  it  means 
the  predominant  party  in  the  church,  and  especially  those 
who  are  so  destitute  of  humility  as  to  arrogate  to  themselves 
an  exclusive  understanding  of  the  gospel. 

Dr.  Worcester  in  his  fii^sl  letter  had  this  remarkable,  and  I 
think,  very  unhappy  passage.  "  The  God  whom  you  wor- 
ship, is  different  from  ours.'"  To  remove  this  impression,  I 
declared  very  fuU}  ,  the  God  whom  I  worship.  Dr.  Worces- 
ter has  taken  no  notice  of  this  sfalement,  but  observes,  "  We 
worship  the  Fiither,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost.  Do  you  worship 
this  sa(ne  God."  To  this  question  I  will  endeavour  to  give 
a  satisfactory  answer.  If  by  "  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy 
Ghost,'"  Dr.  Worcester  means  the  God  of  Abraham,  of 
Jsaac,of  Jacob,  who  glorified  his  son  Jesns,  whom  Peter 
preached  Acts  iii ;  if  he  means  the  God  and  Father  of  our 
Lord  Jesns  Christ  to  whom  Paul  bent  tlie  knee  i  il  he  means 


44 

that  God  whom  Jet'tis  worshipped  in  tlie  solemn  hour  of" 
deafhj  sajino;,  ^'Father  info  thy  liands,  I  commit  my  spirit  ;" 
if  he  means  thai  Goti  of  whom  Jesus  spoke  in  these  memora- 
ble woiiis,  "  (he  hour  comelh  and  liow  is,  when  the  true 
worshipper.'i  shall  worship  the  Father  in  spirit  and  in  truth  ; 
if  he  means  thai  God  of  whom  Paul  said  ;  "  To  us  (i.  e.  to 
Christians)  there  is  one  God.,  even  the  Father  ;  if  by  "  the 
Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,'*  Dr.  Worcester  means  this 
God,  who  is  proposed  to  us  in  these  passages,  the  God  of 
Jesus  Chr  id,  of  Abraham,  of  Paid  and  of  Christians,  ilmn  I 
worship  "  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost."  1  sincerely 
hope  that  this  is  D: .  ^Vorcester's  meaning,  for  it  would  give 
me  great  pain  to  believe  that  he  and  his  friends  worship  any 
other  than  the  "  God  of  Jesus  Christ"  and  the  God  of  Chris- 
tians,— Why  does  he  use  phraseology,  which  renders  this 
point  in  the  least  degree  doubtful  ?  Why  does  he  not  speak 
of  the  true  God  in  the  simple  and  affecting  language  of  the 
scriptures  ?  Jesus  in  his  sermon  on  the  Mount,  has  given  us 
Tory  particular  instructions  in  relation  to  the  object  of  our 
worship,  and  has  closed  this  discourse  v.illi  a  solemn  declara- 
tion, that  if  we  obey  the  precepts  which  it  contains,  we 
shall  be  "  like  the  man  who  built  his  house  on  a  rock." — 
Now  in  this  longest  and  most  particular  discourse  of  Jesus^ 
WHOM  does  he  tell  us  to  worship.  Does  he  say,  when  ye 
pray,  pray  to  "  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Gkost.''^  No — 
His  language,  so  simple,  so  touching,  so  encouraging,  should 
be  engraven  on  all  our  hearts.  "  Thou,  when  thou  prayest, 
*'  enter  into  thy  closet,  and  when  thou  hast  shut  thy  door 
"  pray  to  thy  Father  who  is  in  secret."  Again.  "  When 
"  ye  pray,  say,  Our  Father,  who  art  in  Heaven  ;"  And 
again.  "  If  ye  being  evil,  know  how  to  give  good  gifts  to 
"  your  children,  how  much  more  shall  your  Father  who  is 
"  in  heaven  give  good  things  to  them  that  ask  /u'yn."  To 
these  most  interesting  precepts  of  Jesus,  I  and  ray  brethren 
yield  entire  and  cheerful  obedience.  With  these  precepts 
the  whole  scriptures  concur.  We  find  not  one  passage  in 
the  scriptures,  commanding  us  to  worship  "  the  Father,  Son 
and  Holy  Gho?( ;"  not  one  piecedent,  which  authorizes  such 
■worship, "and  while  we  feel  ourselves  bound  to  exercise 
christian  candour  towards  those  who  adopt  this  forni  of  wor- 
ship, we  are  pot  without  solemn  apprehension,  that,  in  this 
respect,  they  are  guilty  of  irreverence  towards  the  word  of 
God,  and  of  preferring  to  it  the  conunandments  and  inven- 
tions of  men.     Let  Iheni  weigh  seriously   these  remarks. 


45 

In  mv  former  remarks,  I  repelletl  the  assertion  of  Dr- 
Worcester,  that  our  Saviour  is  injinitdy  inferiour  to 
his,  by  declaring  that  "  We  believe  that  God  saves  us 
by  his  son  Jesus  Christ  in  whom  he  dwells,  and  through 
whom  he  bestows  pardon  and  eternal  life."  Dr.  Worcester 
says,  that  this  is  to  declare  that  Jesus  Christ  is  not  onr  ISa- 
viour.  I  lament  that  his  letter  is  dishonoured  by  such  a  re- 
mark. Does  he  not  know  that  the  apostles  again  and  again 
speak  of  God  as  our  Saviour,  and  as  saving  us  by  Jesus 
Christ  ?  Do  they  ?*ierefore  deny  Jesus  to  be  our  Saviour  1 
In  2  Tim.  i.  1,  we  find  these  words  of  Paul,  "  Paul  an  apos- 
"  tie  of  Jesus  Christ,  according  to  the  commandiiient  of 
"  God  our  Saviorir,  and  of  Jesus  Christ  our  hope."  Here 
God,  and  not  Jesus  Christ,  is  called  the  Saviour.  Did 
Paul  intend  to  deny  this  name  of  Jesus  Christ  ?  Is  not  this 
name  applied  to  Jesus  because  he  is  the  minister  of  God- 
in  our  salvation,  and  do  we  then  refuse  it  to  him,  when  we 
declare  that  it  primarily  belongs  to  God,  his  Father.  In 
1  Tim.  ii.  3,  we  meet  these  words,  "  This  is  acceptable  in 
the  sight  of  God  our  Saviour,  who  will  have  all  men  to  be 
saved  ;  for  there  is  one  God,  and  one  Mediator  between 
God  and  men,  the  man  Christ  Jesus."  Here  God  is  emi- 
nently our  Saviour,  and  Jesus  saves  us  as  he  is  his  minis- 
ter. In  Titus  3,  4,  &c.  we  see  this  title  applied  both  to 
God  and  Jesus  Christ  in  a  manner  which  shows  that  it  be- 
longs to  God  in  the  first  and  highest  sense.  "  After  that 
the  kindness  of  God  our  Saviour  appeared,  he  saved  us 
by  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  whicli  he  shed  on  us 
abundantly  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Savioiirr^'  The 
apostle,  it  seems,  thought  that  he  might  call  Jesus  Christ 
our  Saviour,  although  he  considered  God  as  originally  and 
eminently  our  Saviour,  and  as  saving  us  through  or  by  Je- 
sus Christ.  I  will  add  one  more  passage  from  Jude.  "Noh- 
unto  him  who  is  able  to  keep  you  from  falling,  to  the  only 
God,  OUR  Saviour,  be  glory  through  Jesus  Christ  our 
Lord.''  See  Griesbach.  Had  Dr. 'Worcester  weighed 
these  passages,  he  would  not  have  made  the  rash  and  very 
improper  charge,  which  I  am  considering. — Is  not  the  reader 
inclined  to  think,  that  the  apostles  wrote  very  much  like 
Unitarians  ? 

It  was  my  intention  in  this  note  to  show  the  weakness  of 
the  scripture  proof  of  the  Trinity  which  Dr.  Worcester  has 

*  I  omit  some  clauses  that  the  connexion  may  be  better  seen. 


46 

jidduced  in  his  leller.  But  this  pamphlet  is  already  extend' 
ed  bevond  my  wishes  ;  and  besides,  I  wish  to  separale  the 
discussion  of  the  Tiinity  fiom  the  present  controversy.  I 
would  therefore  only  observe  in  relation  to  the  texts  which 
have  been  collected  by  Dr.  Worcester,  that  nothuig  is  easi- 
er tlian  to  produce  a  sliing  ot  texts  in  support  ot  almost 
every  doctrine.  Calvinism  and  Arminianism,  Universal 
Salvation  and  the  doctrine  of  eternal  punishment,  transub- 
staiiiiafion  and  otlier  tenets  of  popery,  may  each  and  all  be 
supported  by  detached  passages  as  '  onclusive  as  those 
which  Dr.  Woicestntr  has  produced  for  the  Trinity.  This 
nioiie  of  detence  is  peculiarly  suited  to  the  Trinitarian  cause, 
Avhich  rests  on  a  comparatively  small  number  of  disconnect- 
ed texts.  Unitarianism,  besides  being  directly  affiimed  in 
particular  passages,  runs  through  the  whole  scriptures,  ap- 
pears on  the  whole  current  of  sentiment  and  langrage  in  the 
old  and  \he  new  Testament,  its  proofs  are  not  therefore  to  be 
despatched  in  so  narrow  a  compass.  It  is  my  earnest  desire 
that  the  publick  attention  may  be  turned  from  individuals  to 
this  point.  Why  cannot  this  controversy  be  conducted  with 
calmness,  without  impeachment  of  character  or  motives,  and 
without  appeals  to  popular  feeling  ?  We  have  all  an  equal 
interest  in  discovering  truth  ;  and  no  zeal,  and  no  sophistry, 
can  long  support  the  cause  of  errour.  Let  us  then  encour- 
age fair  and  dispassionate  discussion,  and  be  careful  to 
throw  no  obstruction  in  the  way  of  free  and  honest  inquiry. 
I  have  now  a  few  words  to  offer  on  the  "  sepai^ation" 
made  by  some  of  the  Unitarians  in  England,  to  which  Dr. 
Worcester  seems  disposed  to  attach  great  importance.  I 
inferred  (perhaps  inconsiderately)  from  the  statement  of 
Dr.  Worcester  in  his  first  letter,  that  these  Unitarians  had 
so  far  introduced  their  peculiarities  into  their  publick  wor- 
ship, that  other  Christians  were  virtually  excluded.  Of 
this  separation  I  expressed  no  approbation,  but  simply  ob- 
served that  it  by  no  means  amounted  to  the  separation 
which  is  recommended  in  this  country,  which  would  deny 
the  christian  character  to  a  large  body  of  professing  Chris- 
tians." Dr.  Worcester,  however,  by  a  kind  of  reasoning, 
which  is  too  common  with  him,  infers  that  this  kind  of  se- 
paration would  be  quite  agi'eeable  to  me,  and  spends  a  page 
in  observations  founded  chiefly  on  my  silence.  Since 
writing  my  remarks,  I  have  bee^n  ha[)py  to  learn  that  the 
impressions  which  I  received  from  Dr.  Worcester  respect- 
ing these  English  Unitarians  were  incorrect.     I  am  inform- 


4f 

«d,  that  their  worship  is  singularly  free  from  peciiliarilles, 
and  lha(  al;  Ciirislians  may  join  in  it  witlioiit  hesi'.ition  or 
pain.  I  learn,  ihal  Mr.  Lindsey  iniroduced  into  his  chapel 
the  Liturgy  of  the  church  of  England,  omitting  only  the 
few  parts  in  which  the  doctrine  oi  (he  Trinity  is  recoi^nized, 
anJ  «iirecting  all  the  prayers  to  the  Father  through  the  Son. 
Tiiis  is  the  worship  which  is  most  common  among  all  de- 
nominations in  this  country,  and  by  which  no  Chnsiian  can 
be  oilended.  Most  sincerely  do  I  wish,  that  our  publick 
se;  vices  may  be  marived  by  this  liberal  character.  Very 
dilierenf  classes  of  Christians,  I  am  persuaded,  may  unite 
in  the  same  worship,  and  be  built  up  at  once  in  godliness 
and  charity.  I  have  listened  with  great  satisfaction  to  ihe 
prayers  of  Trinitarians,  and  I  have  heard  from  very  urdent 
Trinitarians  expressions  of  great  interest  in  prayers  which 
have  been  offered  by  Unitarians.  True  piety,  when  un- 
fettered by  system,  approaches  the  Father  through  the 
Son,  and  supplicates  earnestly  for  the  aids  of  the  Holy 
Spirit. 

Dr.  Worcester  speaks  in  his  letter  of  the  "  anful  lemeri- 
"  ti/  of  adjudging  to  eternal  life,  men,  however  fair  their 
"  character  in  Ihe  eyes  of  the  world,  however  renowned  for 
"  what  the  world  calls  wisdom,  however  distinguished 
"  among  the  friends  of  science  or  of  sacred  literature,  who 
"  never! heless  deny  the  blood  of  atonement,  degrade 
"  theLord,  who  bought  them,  to  the  condition  of  amerecrea- 
"  ture,  go  about  to  establish  their  own  righteousness,"  kc. 
This  passage  is  designed  to  teach  us  that  we  cannot  v>  ith- 
out  anful  temerity  admire  the  christian  virtues  and  labours 
of  such  men  as  Newton,  Locke,  Lardner  and  Price,  or  che- 
rish the  delightful  hope  that  they  have  gone  to  receive  the 
rewards  of  faithful  servants  of  Jesus  Christ.  I  confess  that 
I  am  shocked  when  I  hear  the  humble  Lardner,  (at  whom 
these  remarks  seem  principally  aimed)  charged  with  degrad- 
ing that  Saviour,  to  whose  cause  his  life  was  devoted,  with 
criminal  insensibility  to  his  honour  and  with  a  proud  de- 
pendence on  "  his  own  righteousness."  There  must 
be  something  wrons:,  dreadfully  wrong,  in  a  religious  system, 
which  calls  us  to  breathe  mildew  on  the  fairest  and  most 
interesting  characters  which  have  adorned  the  church,  and 
to  repress  the  sratitude  and  admiration  which  spontaneous- 
ly spring  up  in  a  pure  mind  towards  the  most  illustriou? 
benefactors  of  mankind.  If  it  be  "  awful  temerity"  <o 
think  Lardner  a  good  man,  where  is  the  human  being  whose 


4H 

piety  we  ought  uot  <o  distrust.  What  can  preserve  us 
from  disfrustlng  the  reality  of  2II  human  virtue  ?  To  this 
raournful  result,  the  present  system  of  denunciation  dircctly 
tends.  It  tends  to  difftise  the  most  fatal  kind  of  skepti- 
cism, a  skepticism  in  regard  to  the  realihj  of  all  moral  and 
religious  excellence.  If  the  marks  of  christian  virtue  which 
have  been  exhibited  by  Unitarians  be  false  and  delusive, 
then  none  are  worthy  of  confidence,  and  the  slanders  which 
the  At]]eist  has  cast  on  human  piety  cannot  be  refuted. — 
-If  "  orthodoxy"  encourage  and  demand  this  fatal  censori- 
ou.^ncss,  it  cai.not  be  of  God,  it  cannot  ultimately  prevail. 


\         .■>    ' 


:n ; 


m^ 


*--^ic^>  ^^ 


^J 


■'m$ 


